What's weird about it? AFAICT, Palworld doesn't violate Nintendo copyright in any meaningful sense, though it might violate Nintendo's patent claims.
That said, this lawsuit seems really late, and I wonder if that'll factor into the decision at all (i.e. if it was close, the judge/jury might take the lack of action by Nintendo as evidence of them just looking for money).
Right, and if it's not profitable, it should be scrapped, but if it pays for itself, I see no harm in keeping it.
Out of curiosity, which AI tools specifically do you use and do you pay for them?
Just whatever is free, so no, I don't pay for them for two reasons:
So I'll just find something with a free tier or trial and generate a little bit of code or something. Or I'll use the AI feature in a search engine to help me get search terms for relevant documentation (i.e. list libraries that do X), and then I'll actually read the documentation. I have coworkers who use it for personal projects (not sure what they use), and that's also part of what I've listed above (i.e. the generating documentation part).
But I very rarely use AI, because I very rarely start projects from scratch. 99% of my work is updates to existing projects, so it's really not that useful.
Exactly.
People like easy solutions to complex problems. If you don't see the problems, it's easy to assume they don't exist, but what actually happens is that by banning things, you just push them underground, where they fester. Alcohol prohibition created the mafia, which caused so many more problems than alcohol ever did, and it's still around today. Banning drugs seems to have created, or at least strengthened, the drug cartels. I wouldn't be surprised if strict controls around CSAM actually ends up harming more kids as people who would be casual observers end up getting caught up in the worst of it and end up actually harming children. I'm not saying CSAM should be legal or anything like that, I'm just saying the strict censorship of anything close to it is more likely to push someone who is casually interested to go and find it. The more strictly something is controlled, the more valuable it is for the person who controls it.
In other words, it's the Streisand Effect, but for crime.
No, what we need is better education and better (not more) policing.
I completely agree. I'm reading a book related to 1984, and all of the thought crime and whatnot it talks about is scarily on-point when it comes to social media censorship. For example, "sex crime" is strictly controlled, and in the same chapter that someone gets taken away for getting pregnant, the MC talks about sexual relationships she has and plans to have. Nobody can talk about love or relationships, yet everyone seems to engage in them, or at least one-night stands. In fact, the word used for "abortion" in that book is "unbirth," which is right there with the term "unalived."
Blocking out a huge part of human culture doesn't help anyone, and it doesn't actually work, because people will find a way. What can work is giving users the tools to hide stuff they don't want to see.
Check local classifieds. Even if your area isn't big into cycling, surely someone likes taking their kids on bike rides at a local park or whatever.
Good point, I'll consider MOCA. The main problem is that we have three sets (OTA antenna, satellite, and internet), and I'm not sure which are which, but figuring that out should be quite a bit easier than running cable. :)
I'm not planning on getting anything more than gigabit in the near future, though my city is rolling out fiber and claims to support up to 10gbit.
The US constitution doesn’t guarantee Chinese citizens, living in China, the right to freedom of the press.
True, but the US constitution guarantees Chinese citizens, living in or visiting the US or its territories, all the rights in the Constitution. So when TikTok operates in the US and provides services to US customers, it gets the protections of the US Constitution, as well as the obligations of US law.
TikTok appears to be a tool of the Chinese gov’t
And this is covered by freedom of the press. There's no legal requirement for press to be pro-US, and it doesn't necessarily need to be accurate, it just can't be fraudulent. If TikTok is being fraudulent, then they should be held accountable for that.
As I stated, if TikTok is sold off so that they’re no longer connected to China, then they’re more than welcome to continue to operate.
Yes, according to the law that they're contesting.
I'm saying that I don't think this law is constitutional. I don't use TikTok, I believe TikTok is dangerous, and I don't think anyone should use it, but I'm also uncomfortable with the government picking and choosing which apps I can use, especially when the justification seems to be about the speech on that app. So even though I wish TikTok would disappear, I don't think that justifies using the law to accomplish that.
Yeah, if you're regularly doing heavy loads, getting a purpose-built trailer is a good idea. But if you're just getting groceries, you can probably get a kids trailer used for <$100.
I think it should be illegal, full stop.
Then we're certainly not in agreement. And that's fine.
I think sale of data should be 100% allowed, provided the customer consents (and gets fair compensation). The customer, however, needs to be aware of what data is being sold, to whom, and what they're getting in return. Burying that 20 pages deep in a TOS doesn't count, it needs to be in a format that an average person could reasonably be expected to fully understand. The service provider and the company receiving the data should have strict legal requirements to keep that data safe, so if there's a breach of any variety, the consequences would be a lot steeper than a few dollars per person affected.
So essentially what I'm after here is transparency to the customer, and actual consequences for companies that fail to protect customer data.
There seems to have been a set of informal assurances between the US/NATO and the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward past Germany, though there were no legally binding agreements. Russia objected when NATO expanded in the 90s, and it continued objecting as more and more countries joined NATO. This isn't new, it's a clearly established pattern.
So when we get to Putin, I think his argument that NATO is being too aggressive has merit, at least from the Russian perspective. If he allows NATO to continue expanding, the Russian people would justifiably be pretty upset, so he essentially is forced to take some kind of action to show that Russia has certain lines in the sand. If he lets Ukraine, their next-door neighbor, join NATO, who would trust that he actually has any kind of power to protect Russian interests? So it makes complete sense that Putin decided to invade Ukraine for the primary purpose of preserving a line of buffer states, as well as legally justify the taking of Crimea. That sends a message to other border states that Russia will not stand by while it's regional influence is further eroded.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he was justified in attacking Ukraine, I'm merely saying he was obligated to demonstrate a show of force to retain his position of power. If he was able to get a peace agreement from Ukraine to not join NATO and to formally recognize Russian control of Crimea, I think he would've withdrawn. That didn't happen, so now he's between a rock and a hard place and needs to get significant concessions from Ukraine to retain his power in Russia.
Hard disagree. I really enjoy a lot of Nintendo's games, and will be buying Zelda: Echoes of Wisdom right around release. Some favorites:
My kids like Pokemon and my SO like Ring Fit, but I think that series is pretty boring. And here are some I haven't played, but probably will:
That said, I very much don't like Nintendo as a company, especially its opposition to emulation. But I do like their first party titles, and they're very polished at launch, unlike many other big studios.