exactly: It's "open source" like android. The core android is open source (in many cases because they are required to), but that does not include anything that makes the actual system work for normal users. The core android is open source ("Android Open Source Project"), but that includes practically nothing: Essentially the stuff that is in there are things that have to be open source (like the linux kernel they use). However, if you want to have the system "practically useable" you need a lot more, which is usually the "Google Mobile Services", which are proprietary. You are also generally required to install all items in the GMS, i.e. even if you only need the play store, you still have to install google chrome.

Further, the android name and logo are trademarked by google, so even if you want to roll your own android, you would not be allowed to call it android. WearOS is essentially the same thing: The android subsystem is open, the actual thing you call WearOS (plus trademarks, etc.) are not.

Here is the more burning question: What is worse? Case "It was not made to design standards": Then boing might have a problem in their manufacturing processes, which is going to have ramifications on the entire fleet. This would be bad, but fixable.

Case "It was made to design standards": In that case you only have a problem with this one type of jet, but you have a problem in your fundamental design, which might ground the entire fleet (again).

And that would be completely legal, just like any random guy on deviantart can draw something in the style of e.g. Picasso without getting into trouble (unless of course they claim it was painted by picasso, but that should be obvious).

train one with all the Nintendo leaks

This is fine

generate some Zelda art and a new Mario title

This is copyright infringement.

The ruling in japan (and as I predict also in other countries) is that the act of training a model (which is just a statistical estimator) is not copyrightable, so cannot be copyright infringement. This is already standard practice for everything else: You cannot copyright a mathematical function, regardless of how much data you use to fit to it (that is sensible: CERN has fit physics models to petabytes worth of data, that doesn't mean they hold a copyright on laws of nature, they just hold the copyright on the data itself). However, if you generate something that is copyrighted, that item is still copyrighted: It doesn't matter whether you used an AI image generator, photoshop, or a tattoo gun.

First, I don’t think that’s the right comparison. You need to compare them to taxis.

It's not just that, you generally have a significant distribution shift when comparing the self-drivers/driving assistants to normal humans. This is because people only use self-driving in situations where it has a chance of working, which is especially true with stuff like tesla's self-driving where ultimately people are not even going to start the autopilot when it gets tricky (nevermind intervening dynamically: they won't start it in the first place!)

For instance, one of the most common confounding factors is the ratio of highway driving vs non-highway driving: Highways are inherently less accident prone since you don't have to deal with intersections, oncoming traffic, people merging in from every random house, or children chasing a ball into the street. Self-drivers tend to report a lot more highway traffic than ordinary drivers, due to how the availability of technology dictates where you end up measuring. You can correct for that by e.g. explicitly computing the likelihood p(accident|highway) and use a common p(highway) derived from the entire population of car traffic.

Not necessarily: there have been recent works that indicate that filtering effects of fine tuned LLMs greatly improves the data efficiency (e.g phi-1). Further, if you have e.g. human selection on top of LLM generated content you can get great results as the LLM generation can be used as a soft curriculum, with the human selection biasing towards higher quality.

Honestly, I recommend everyone without existing Linux experience to use Fedora: it's reasonable modern (nice for, e.g. gaming), while also not being a full rolling release model like Arch (which needs expertise to fix in case something breaks). It's also reasonably popular, meaning you will find enough guidance in case something does break.

Basically the stuff they need to detect whether ads are actually shown needs information of the device state that are generally not available according to Article 5(3) ePR.

Could be none of them and the complaint comes from of the academy teams

You cannot run Signal without "Signal - the company" existing. All of their systems are designed to be attached to one specific backend, namely the signal-run backend, meaning without re-engineering the existing infrastructure you cannot simply swap over.

As @kpw already mentioned, "Signal - the company" dying would involve a functional reset of everything: No contacts, no servers, no infrastructure. COULD you fork the thing and build you own system? Sure, but it would be functionally unusable since no one else would be using it, since everything relies on specifically the signal servers to function. A post-signal system could re-use some of their code (if it runs outside signal corp - "works on my machine" could be present in this project as well), but would need to rebuild the actual network.

This is in contrast to something like the matrix protocol: If a specific matrix instance goes kaput, you still have the overall network working. This means that even if an instance implodes, you would have an easy migration path since the matrix network itself persists.

Why?
It's part of the track that everybody has to deal with. If the car/driver is incapable of working around the real-world constraints of the track, they crash or need to drive slower: The track not being smooth as glass is part of driving the car.

Essentially the same argument: Due to the fact the HBO show was syndicated throughout the united states, he can file in the federal courts in e.g. Texas (usually the argument is something like "They damaged business relations/contracts in XYZ state, therefore we file in XYZ state").

I answered a little more in detail in a different comment (https://fedia.io/m/[email protected]/t/411563/-/comment/2556033) but to address the last point: They did file in federal court (specifically the federal district court in north texas).

The issue with the internet is that it did take place in texas as well: The news article was available in texas, so the news corp can be sued there. Basically the argument is: "Media Matters harmed X's brand in texas using misleading information" (you can read their arguments for filing in texas under the "Jurisdiction and Venue" section of their filing).

Also remember that this is currently X's wish list: Media Matters can file for a change in venue.

Edit: Quick update.

Looking at their filing, the case will probably fail under a motion for summary judgment: They basically agree with Media Matters that they did show ads under extremist's posts. They simply argue that you need to push the twitter algorithm to its limits by doomscrolling for a long time until the algorithm fails. However, this doesn't make any of the facts provided by Media Matters (https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/musk-endorses-antisemitic-conspiracy-theory-x-has-been-placing-ads-apple-bravo-ibm-oracle) wrong.

Surely a company should be governed by the laws of the state in which they are based

This is not true and wouldn't make why sense: let's say you are a delivery company and one of your drivers runs over a dog in Texas. The lawsuit can be filed in Texas, regardless of whether your company is in Texas, California, or even outside the united states. The place you are incorporated in doesn't change the damages or laws you violated when running over the dog. Of course you can also move the venue to the state the company is based in.

You cannot (generally) move it to another state, since that state doesn't even have jurisdiction over any part of the incident.

The internet is just special in the sense that really something that happened on the internet happened everywhere on earth at the same time, meaning any venue is a place where potential damages were accrued.

There are certain things you are allowed to use cookies for even without asking for permission (i.e. they wouldn't even need to tell you about them). These are effectively the kinds of things that are necessary for your website to work in the first place: For instance if you have a dark and a light mode and you want people to change this even without logging in, another example is language settings (this is why sites like e.g. duckduckgo can have a "settings" tab despite the fact you are not logged into anything).

The rule-of-thumb is that everything that is directly related to the functionality of your website is fair even without asking (they are "essential").
Of course the specifics are a little more tricky: For instance you could have a shop in which you can put things into your "shopping basket" without being logged in. This is fine since it's core functionality. However, if you use that same cookie to also inform your recommendation algorithm, you could get into trouble. Another aspect is 3rd party cookies: These, while not theoretically always requiring permissions, in practice do need expressed permission since you, as the website host, cannot guarantee what happens with these cookies (and 3rd party cookies are, in general, an easy way to track users, which isn't core functionality for most websites).

I found that subscribing to @beehaw.org magazines lead to a 500 page (though the subscription does go through).
Something really small I noticed: the about page still lists "This is a general interest kbin instance." and maybe should be changed to mbin ;)

As someone migrating over from kbin this instance looks really clean and well taken care of, great work!