AnyOldName3

In the case of AI, even if consumers actively try and avoid products with AI, it’s difficult. There are studies showing customers are generally less likely to buy a product if it’s described as having AI features, so the overall market demand is already for consumer products to have less AI. The demand companies are catering to is from investors, who don’t need to care about whether it’s viable to sell anything until after the bubble pops.

That doesn’t stop Americans signing up with the instance and then dominating all discussion there.

The UK has a lot of ethnic Indians because of the empire and encouraging immigration to replace people who didn’t survive WWII. The Labour Party has about as many people with Indian heritage as would be expected given population demographics. It’s probably just more than in Canada, so it seems like a lot to you.

It’s not a one-and-done treatment. You need to keep going back, so the doctor’s incentivised to make sure you still want to come back.

Most software is like this, but you also don’t get to look at the source code either.

It looks like the change happened nearly a year ago, and no one’s kicked up a fuss, so either it was done properly (i.e. past contributors were contacted and consented to the licence change, and any that didn’t had their contributions replaced), or there’s a big problem once a past contributor notices.

It doesn’t make it any more legal to fork the project without going back to the last GPL3 commit, though, as any contributions after the license change have to be assumed to be covered by the new licence, so the combined work would be under an invalid licence (as the old and new licences aren’t compatible) rather than being still covered by the old licence.

Normally, I’d completely dismiss the possibility that a licence change like this could have been done properly, but Stenzek is associated with Dolphin Emulator, which did manage to pull off a switch from GPL2 to GPL3+ by emailing lots of people and replacing a lot of code.

The licence doesn’t permit derivative works, so no forks and no downstream packages.

This is untrue. I can’t do this because I can’t convince the verification tool that my phone really has a camera, so I can’t show it Norman Reedus.

At the moment, they’re already at risk of being removed by the government, who can make them illegal, and simultaneously at risk of being removed by payment processors, who can prevent the stores from operating. It makes no difference to the government whether they’re also the payment processor. They could remove them anyway. Having two entities with unilateral power to remove something can’t be worse than just having one of them.

They can do a really shit job of administering payment processes in a transparent and democratic manner before they end up being worse than the status quo where it’s entirely untransparent and undemocratic. Also, governments already have the power to make things they don’t like illegal, so there’s no reason to expect they’d block payments for things they’ve left legal, whereas payment processors currently block plenty of legal things.

Soldiers are supposed to question potentially-illegal orders and refuse to execute them if their commanding officer can’t give a good reason why they’re justified. Being in charge doesn’t mean you’re infallible, and there are plenty of mistakes programmers make that the compiler can detect.

Most of the UK’s COVID fraud was from giving out contracts to companies that knew full well that they couldn’t deliver, e.g. a £40 million PPE contract to the landlord of the Health Secretary’s local pup, so it’s not absurd to claim that the point of those contracts wasn’t to save the economy, but rather transfer taxpayer money from the treasury to friends of Conservative Party leadership while there was still something left to loot. There was also lots lost in loans to fictional companies and furlough payments to fictional employees, of which a minority went to small businesses gaming the system, and a lot to organised crime gaming the system and then laundering the money so it couldn’t be traced and recovered (without giving the Serious Fraud Office and National Crime Agency enough budget to hire a workable number of forensic accountants).

That’s not what Rust’s documentation says. It does a compile-time bounds check if it can prove what the index might be during compilation, and a runtime bounds check if it can’t. In release mode, it tries harder to prove the maximum index is below the minimum length, but it still falls back to a runtime bounds check if it can’t unless you use get_unchecked, which is unsafe.

If you’re going to change the definition of words, it’s pretty easy to show that garbage collection on its own is sufficient, but it’s not possible to have a useful conversation if someone’s using their own personal definition of the terms being discussed. The generally accepted definition of memory safety includes deeming out-of-bounds accesses and other spatial memory safety issues unsafe.

The previous government wrote off billions in COVID-related fraud, and this guy got less than forty grand. Either there were millions of people defrauding the government, or the average incident involved much, much more money.

For a start, having a garbage collector doesn’t mean its use is mandatory, but even in a language where the garbage collector is mandatory, keeping an array alive as long as any references to it exist doesn’t stop you doing things like getting muddled about its length and reading/writing past the end. Mandatory garbage collection only prevents temporal memory bugs like use-after-free, not spatial memory safety bugs like buffer overruns, which need to be prevented by other mechanisms like bounds checks.

Garbage collection doesn’t guarantee memory safety and it’s perfectly possible to create a memory-safe language without garbage collection. There are plenty of garbage collectors for C++ (and until C++23, support for garbage collection was part of the standard, although no one implemented it), and languages like C# let you interact with garbage-collected objects in unsafe blocks.

Nail polish typically uses acetone as its solvent, and despite smelling, acetone is something that humans naturally have low levels of in their blood, so slightly higher levels are pretty safe. Obviously, having exposure to large quantities is bad, but that isn’t how nail polish is typically used.

So for a developer to release a game on the Game Boy without Nintendo knowing, they would have to commit copyright infringement.

That’d be trademark infringement, not copyright infringement.

They used this same tactic on the Switch. They claim the prod keys, which are needed for Switch emulators, are copyrighted.

That’s not quite the same thing, and still isn’t because the keys are copyrighted. There’s Digital Rights Management software running on the Switch, and part of what it does is decrypt encrypted parts of games with the keys. Originally, Nintendo managed to keep the keys secret, but eventually people managed to extract them. The next line of defence is that under the DMCA (or equivalent law in countries with a trade deal with the US), it’s illegal to attempt to circumvent DRM, and as the keys are capable of doing that, they themselves might count as a DRM circumvention device, which would be illegal to own or share. It’s a legal grey area whether or not they’d really count - lots of companies claim that it’s illegal to have these so-called illegal numbers, but Wikipedia are confident enough that that’s not what the law really says that their Illegal Number page lists a bunch of them.

This gets even more complicated when it’s specifically about emulators, as the DMCA (or equivalent) have a specific carve-out for interoperability, saying you’re allowed to ignore parts of the DMCA if it’s specifically for the goal of making computer software work with computer hardware it wasn’t originally intended to. For the relevant parts of the DMCA that aren’t related to DRM, there’s case law confirming that it’s okay. However, no emulator developers have ever actually been sued for making an emulator for a system with any DRM (e.g. the thing with Switch emulators several months ago was settled out of court, and the threat was to sue them for things like illegally sharing games between developers, when they could have each bought their own copy, so weren’t protected by the carve-out). That means that this is a grey area, too.

If Nintendo wanted to shut down an emulator based on its use of their keys, they’d not only have to set a precedent that the keys really did count as a DRM circumvention device, but also that the interoperability carve-out didn’t apply to DRM circumvention devices. It would be a big, expensive case, and as there are well-funded organisations that rely on the precedent not being set against them in both directions, both sides would get interested third parties funding their legal fees. No one wants that, so Nintendo stick to claiming emulators are illegal on their website, not in court documents, and only go after emulator developers who’ve provably done a second illegal thing they can be punished for.

100% a trademark violation, and there’s nothing like an interoperability carveout for trademarks that could be used to defend it.