> to leave those allies with only American companies to buy from
This is conspiratorial nonsense, the EU has Sweden's Ericsson and Finland's Nokia and along with South Korea's Samsung there are plenty of choices. I can't actually think of comparable American companies.
> The ICE person states they will not try to enter and if the clerk touches them, they will yank the person out of the building.
I'm not sure what the agent has to do to qualify as a threat to you, but at the very least this is thuggish behavior. The embassy is Ecuadorean sovereign territory where the staff have immunity from US laws, threatening to yank someone out of there is like extracting someone from Ecuador by force. It's highly offensive.
If you tried that at a US embassy you'd probably be shot, but it's generally impossible because they are all heavily secured and fortified.
You don't wired need display output, just WiFi. Motorola's Smart Connect desktop uses Miracast for using TVs and the like as desktop monitors as well as wired.
I got my moto g84 5G with 8/256 GB for about 170 euros new and it supports it (not wired). Seems to work fine.
Is it any good? Last time I tried miracast the framerate and video quality was total garbage due to shit compression. Barely worked for streaming youtube videos to the TV but no way I could do it for productivity.
Mirecast (when done properly) is basically a video stream over a peer-to-peer WiFi Direct connection. H.264+AAC/AC3/PCM audio sent over RTSP/RTP using a standard IPv4 stack. Better codecs are available on newer devices. Two modern WiFi 6 devices can stream gigabits per second that way if configured right, there's no need for the typical low FPS, lag, and desynchronised audio from a protocol standpoint.
For some reason, a lot of implementations (especially on the receiving end) suck at this. The latency seems to be terrible and TVs and displays seem to care more about reassembling old frames than about showing the latest good signal. However, it's not all that different from what Apple is doing.
Miracast over ethernet/via an access point is something different (something I've never really seen used myself).
ICE are just Trump's goons used to rough up blue states.
Their tools are fear, teargas, capsicum spray, false arrest, kidnap and murder.
The fact that the feds won't allow access to evidence and actively destroy it and ICE refuse to allow people to help those shot is tantamount to a confession on the spectrum of guilty behavior.
And he doesn't even have to follow through if he doesn't need it, he can probably sell it into the super tight market and profit that way.
I guess the memory companies loved the deal because they knew prices would skyrocket. I wonder if there are rules against cornering the market that apply here.
No, he made deals with each manufacturer in secret. That way neither of them realized how much the deal would affect global supply. It was underhanded all around.
A factor that people have not considered is that the copyright status of AI generated text is not settled law and precedent or new law may retroactively change the copyright status of a whole project.
Maybe a bit unlikely, but still an issue no one is really considering.
There has been a single ruling (I think) that AI generated code is uncopyrightable. There has been at least one affirmative fair use ruling. Both of these are from the lower courts. I'm still of the opinion that generative AI is not fair use because its clearly substitutive.
I agree with you that generative AI is clearly not fair use.
However, at this point, the economic impact of trying to de tangle this mess would be so large, the courts likely won't do anything about it. You and I don't get to infringe on copyright; Microsoft, Facebook and Google sure do though.
I think the usage is so widespread now that the law will adapt to customs. It is untenable now to say code generated is uncopyrightable IMO. Maybe copyright as is defined right now is not enough, but then the legislation will change it. There is enough pressure on them from the business community to do so.
Some take that in consideration, I did when I until recently was in a CTO role, and I've come across companies that take compliance seriously and have decided against such code synthesis due to the unclear legal status.
Do they? Isn’t the application of the license its enforcement?
It’s illegal to commit fraud or murder, but if you do it and suffer no consequences (perhaps you even get pardoned by your president), does it matter that it was illegal? Laws are as strong as their enforcement.
For a less grim and more explicit example, Apple has a policy on the iOS App Store that apps may not use notifications to advertise. Yet it happens all the time, especially from big players like Uber. Apple themselves have done it too. So if you’re a bad actor and disrespectful to your users, does it matter that the rule exists?
Licenses determine the outcome of copyright lawsuits. If there's no copyright lawsuit, nobody looks at the license.
Licenses determine whether a copyright lawsuit is likely to happen. Most entities won't sue you if they expect to lose. But they are not the only deciding factor. Some entities never sue, which means you don't have to follow their licenses.
Sometimes they don't sue because they don't think they can prove you infringed copyright, even if you did. Even if AI is found to be copyright infringement in general, that won't mean every output is a copyright infringement of every input. Writing C code wouldn't be copyright infringement of Harry Potter. The entity suing you would still have to prove that you infringed.
I never thought of this, you are right. What happens if, let's say, AI generated text/code is "ilegal"? Especially what happens with all the companies that have been using it for their products? Do they need to rollback? It should be a shit show but super interesting to see it unfold...
Exactly. I could put $100,000 as my max bid, but if second place only bids $10, then all they know is I bid $11 (or whatever the increment is). eBay doesn't tell anyone my max is $100K.
I think the reasoning is that people are irrational, and people don't actually have "hard limits' so others will bid in increments to exceed it. So in aggregate you will end up hitting your max more often because of others' irrationality than if it was a sealed auction and you don't give them that chance.
This is my point. If you look at the actual behavior and read people's comments in forums you'll see that almost no one sticks to their "hard limit". Including me!
People's competitive behavior, or "you're not taking this from me," or "I've definitely got this item and have made plans" or any number of other emotional behaviors take over.
People's railing against sniping also demonstrates this.
- bidding more than once and allowing time for others to counter bid drives up the price through competition for the item. Sniping also removes the temptation to counter bid, rather than to stick to your maximum bid.
- not sniping allows the seller to do ghost bidding, letting them discover your maximum price (including counter bidding). Here someone always out bid you (the ghost bidder) but the seller says the winner didn't complete the sale so offers it to you at your highest bid.
This is conspiratorial nonsense, the EU has Sweden's Ericsson and Finland's Nokia and along with South Korea's Samsung there are plenty of choices. I can't actually think of comparable American companies.
reply