If the original ToS on Twitch grants Amazon a license to create derivative works then they don't have anything to worry about.

It's like your local superstation had the rights to run ads on Star Trek in addition to the license fee they paid but they didn't therefore get a right to create a new Star Trek series or publish a "Best Moments of STTNG 1989" show around the holidays.

Now if they had gone to Paramount about the Best-Of show in theory they could have negotiated a license for that, having already been media partners. Heck, some software company got Riker to pitch their product from the Bridge.

The big authors' settlement with OpenAI sets at least some precedent in this nascent field of IP law (which is enforced whether we like it or not).

But I've never heard of a Twitch streamer talking about a derivative work that Amazon created from their show using their words or likeness.

To be fair Youtube does indeed do a yearly "best of" show.

Who knows, maybe we'll see an AI Hassan Piker doing and saying some wildly ill-advised shit in the near future. Would not be entirety shocking.

Who you know is as important as what you know, in most parts of life.

Did you want actually useful advice that might lead to the outcome your daughter hopes for or were you wanting some bromide about hard work leading to great things or at least being its own reward?

Ultimately grades are somewhat subjective. If you know your professor enough that they are able to determine you actually do know your stuff but were just very sick the day of the quiz, is it really cheating for them to say give you some extra credit opportunity? That won't happen if your class is a 150 student lecture though, just as a practical matter.

Trying to hold others back is wrong, but taking maxium advantage of every opportunity that comes your way, like say going to good-private-university if your parents can send you, is what winners do!

My understand though is you still get marks, and all the other ordinary feedback the instructor would provide. As far as electives go the other students are not taking it pass fail or might not be so if their is any bell curve grading happening you will be slugging it out with people that have full skin in the game.

I think I would find being told - "You passed, but if you deliver this kind of performance next semester you'll be getting a D." My reaction to that would be "well crap, I just dodged a real bullet better shape up because the next one counts!"

I do also see your point though for some folks it would be just another event where they receive no real consequences, and that only serves to reinforce their idea/experience with life of there being no consequences.

The flip side is if you sitting there with a merit scholarship that requires you to maintain a 3.0 GPA or something and you finish semester 1 with something closer to 2.0, because you really did not understand what studying actually means yet.. Are not despairing? Because I know I'd be thinking crap not only do I need to do better next semester I am going to need to jump all the way to straight As or I am done, maybe I ought to just quit.

Also pass/fail is still not exactly no consequences if you really FA, you will still FO; and get failing mark, and no course credit.

About the only thing I can see here as far as this being helpful is the fact that a lot of students depending on what their primary education was actually like are surprised by how much higher the bar at University might be.

So getting a D after being in some HS where they hand out As as participation trophies might be rather shocking. So being able to go ok 'well this one does not really count I still passed' does afford that student who

1) simply cares about getting high marks
2) needs to keep a scholarship
3) hopes to earn some kind of honors diploma

a little space to adjust their expectations and effort level before being told after their first semester, you dug a deep hole for yourself and might be well and truly f***ed as far having a decent GPA, graduating Cum laude, not losing their merit monies, and so on.

So as far as a marking system goes I don't think is bad and maybe it is even more 'fair'. I don't really see this doing much for mental heath though.

If they work, then why not use them as the first line of treatment?

Based on Trump's age, health, and actuarial tables, he better use that army really quickly because he doesn't have many years left.

A lot of the things you listed there can be determined by watching the parking lot for a few days.

Which I have absolutely know investors to do. The bar to proving insider trading is as the parent suggested actually higher than most people expect.

That facilities guy if he got dragged into court, is going to argue that anyone living near by could tell you the number of Cintas and Granger trucks in and out lately made the situation clear to anyone watching. He is a facilities guy nobody tells him what the plans are, he can guess because all the work order entries he has put in for basic repairs for the last eight weeks have been declined, but he does not actually know..either as far as the law is concerned.

Re-Inusrance would be a swap, primary insurance is very much regulated by states. Your interpretation would absolutely upend the insurance industry.

I would also not be so sure the administration is "wrong" here about CFTC authority. If we consider the down right radical determine the courts have embrace for a century regarding the commerce clause, if you read this clause in the same expansive way, just about anything does have commercial potential ... consequence. The word potential there can do a lot of work. I mean if we bet on the number of concerts Taylor Swift will have on her next tour that has potential commercial consequences for anyone in the business of screen printing t-shirts; you never know they could *potentially* land the order and the number of show might determine how big the order is..

If we really had a functioning legal system 7 USC Â 1a(47)(A) - would be struck down as 'void for vagueness'

"associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence" is so broad it should never have been legally acceptable language; but that describes half the US code now days... In short the law is whatever the politically motivated judge you venue shop for decides now..

That seems inappropriate.

Certainly the feds should assert their legal supremacy if they truly believe federal law covers the activity. It would be reasonably for them petition the state court to stay any orders requiring a business to cease operation while Feds seek to settle who the regulatory authority lays with.

However outside of defense production like situations I don't think federal government should be ordering anyone to operate anything. Clearing the way for the do so sure, but if say Kalshi simply does not want to deal with NY and NY customers until matter is settled they should be entirely free to simply exit the state.

Right it is a lack of understanding as far as the security model is concerned.

You are captive in a metal can and the authorities control the exists. It is not even like a bus or train where you might force the operators to top and you could run off into the woods or someone could meet you with a car, even if you hijack the thing by the time you land it, the authorities are there waiting for you.

There is little room for mischief on an airline because anything you might to try to escape mostly won't work and will mostly only dig a deeper hole...

Duh the in air wifi isn't running the very most hardened configuration and attacks like evil twin are possible. of course that is the posture because if it wasnt lots of older devices would not be able to connect and flyers would get upset.

The assumption is if you are smart enough to understand what deauth + evil twin attacks look like, you are smart enough to not do it on a commercial airliner because it is probably one of the FEW places you are nearly certain to get busted..

Its not racism or prejudice in the sense of judging people by immaterial qualities (skin color, sex/gender/ethnicity/etc) , it is the prejudice of Elitism. They think ONLY their elite compatriots are or should be eligible to doing the six figure job. There was a cute 80s movie that took this Elitism to task, The Last Starfighter.

It fits this pretty well.

I do not believe the differences are so stark as to account for a jump from 6% to 22% and back to 6%.

That may explain the mechanism, but it still means they've got too small a sample size. There's no reason for Windows and Linux users to differ so extremely over four day weekends.

You don't have to complain about everything. Removing plastic from the water is a good thing.

This is smart but harder than it needs to be.

Do we have a wrapper available that can let native Zoom launch and only have access to ~/.config/zoom and some USB input devices but not the rest of the machine?

Somehow building a custom MAC profile is expert-level stuff two decades on and not an end user's job.

An on-demand screen sharing permission popup should be achievable.

It's silly that a browser sandbox is better than any native sandbox available.

Perhaps such a tool readily exists and just needs to be mainstreamed into existing distros.

I know there was a Debian project a while back that aimed for all services to pass systemd strict security by default but nobody wanted to do the work.

That's the right mindset but separate from user apps.