It’s been used as an excuse to lay off people, but not the real reason. They were looking at ways to short term boost stock prices since stock buy backs caused their stock prices to increase, but that boost is fading, they needed another artificial boost to profit to maintain those stock prices.
I mean that applies yo a lot large corporations. They’ve mostly stopped innovating and started cutting costs in order to squeeze out some money from the company before it dies. And I’m sure she knows that. It’s likely that she’s there specifically to destroy the remainder of the company. After all, true information is bad for fascism. Gotta keep the people in a constant state of poverty and lack of services, and then blame all of that on some other small, vulnerable group, so their followers will stay distracted and one-issue voters will vote for things that are bad for them as long as were torturing ,murdering, and/or deporting the people they think are the cause of their problems rather than the ones they voted for.
When they absorbed their only real competition and instead of using their advantages, just got rid of them, I knew it was the end of good subs and dubs very soon. I don’t want literal translations I’m subs without explanations or AI voiced dubs with poor acting ability or plain monotonous speech like they used to be a few decades ago. I want people to be there translating more than just j individual words.
Probably just to try to make Garmin’s product less useful in the short term while the case drags out. Or as a way to get Garmin to acquire them. Strava basically seems to have bought up some competitors that were failing and they have been on the way downhill. So at this stage usually these companies start cost cutting and using any means necessary to increase their perceived value for sale. This gives Garmin an incentive to buy them as that would end the lawsuit and they’d then acquire some additional defensive patents.
deleted by creator
Yeah, software patents in the US especially, have become a way for companies to either kill competition, or make buying up ridiculous patents and suing for infringement their primary source of income.
Primary issue is the patent office has few officers that are technical enough to understand the overlap of the specific industry and software. So, they tend to just allow anything, especially from larger companies that they’re told to assume have the expertise if they don’t since their load is too large to have time to learn new stuff and truly research if something is obvious or not.
YouTube did make some changes to their terms primarily for creators that get paid for content. They added some new LLM-based scanning of content to find stuff that is too repetitive or didn’t contain enough original content. Assuming the creators you looked at have mostly original content rather than remixing of content which may be misinterpreted by LLMs as not being “original enough”, they could be falling victim to overaggressive hits if they use a consistent format in their content since LLMs don’t really understand context, only patterns.
I’d be interested to find out if the creators got any notification from YouTube on the reason for removal of the content.
Considering the community this is posted in, I think it’s fair to mention (if maybe not directly link to) there are devices that decode DRM and other encoding and pass on a stream that can be watched without needing all of that. The ones I saw were under $100. Though it’s definitely possible that these may get cracked down on eventually either by customs or changes in the DRM that requires internet connectivity to decode which has been discussed though seems dumb to need internet to watch a broadcast signal, but greed often causes stupid things like that.
An antenna? If you don’t have a TV, you can get a tuner dongle and antenna for your PC and use VLC or other streaming video clients. Unfortunately, the services that take over-the-air signals and put them online usually get killed off by lawsuits. But tuner dongles and half decent, compact antennas are pretty cheap.
Possibly, but I don’t see Google doing that either. It’s not about where the app comes from really. The thing they are going to restrict is the developer. A developer can not have their app installed on a certified phone, regardless of where the user got the app, if the developer is not registered.
So, since there are no regulations to allow a user to install apps from any chosen developer, only from any chosen app store, there likely will be no regulatory recourse like Apple is facing as mentioned by the OP.
This is different, by design. Sideloading and alternate app stores are still perfectly fine. It’s just that the developer has to give a bunch of personal into to Google in order for their app not to be rejected by the phone itself. Middleman doesn’t matter which is where most if the regulations are. Problem is that many open source apps don’t have a developer willing to spend the time and money or give up their privacy in order to publish an app they don’t make money on. So it’s designed to kill off FOSS apps.
More evidence that although I love the idea of the MIT license, it is not good when large corporate interests and their money get involved. It’s too easy for the code to get scooped up and relicensed or just hidden away. Copyleft licensed projects are the only ones I’ll work on anymore.
X is a right-wing propaganda platform now. Bluesky is not a good alternative though. It’s just as controlled and toxic as X was just before Elan bought it and will eventually become what X is now when a major corporation or rich person decides to grab it or it goes public. The federation functionality is just for show and marketing. I wish people would stop just jumping when platforms become truly horrible and then jumping to something that will be made as horrible very easily after it becomes popular enough.
Unfortunately, the current state of the patent office is extremely understaffed and mostly nontechnical. So, there’s not enough qualified examiners to examine patents, not just in software, but medical devices, voting machines, and lots of other industries. So essentially if a patent is submitted by a major company, it just gets rubber stamped. And it’s up to the courts to sort it out. Unfortunately that sorting out is biased and understaffed, too, so usually the initial case will go to the patent holder by default and it’s not until an appeal or two on those biases and technical misinterpretations that it can be invalidated. So it’s rare for a smaller company to be able to spend that much money to invalidate an obvious idea like this. Of course this is by design to give large corporations an unfair advantage. If they want some tech, they just sue for a stupid patent, wait until the company either folds and then they can steal it legally, or goes bankrupt fighting it and they can acquire them hostilely.
All valuable data should be backed up off site in “cold storage” type places. It’s not that expensive compared to the production storage.