Archive.org link

Some key excerpts:

In the latest twist in the bruising beef between Drake and Kendrick Lamar, the Canadian rapper has initiated legal action against Universal Music Group over allegations that the company conspired using Spotify to artificially inflate the popularity of Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us.”

The action is doubly surprising because UMG distributes both artists’ recordings.

In a filing Monday in Manhattan court first reported by Billboard, Drake’s Frozen Moments LLC accused UMG of launching an illegal “scheme” involving bots, payola and other methods to boost the numbers for Lamar’s viciously personal song, which accuses Drake of pedophilia and amplified the already fiery dispute between the two artists.

“UMG did not rely on chance, or even ordinary business practices,” the petition continues. “It instead launched a campaign to manipulate and saturate the streaming services and airwaves.”

The song in question can be found here: YouTube | Spotify | Tidal | Apple Music

Archive.org link

Some key excerpts:

Since Elon Musk bought Twitter in 2022 and subsequently turned it into X, disaffected users have talked about leaving once and for all

For the most part, X has held up as the closest thing to a central platform for political and cultural discourse.

After Trump’s election victory, more people appear to have gotten serious about leaving. According to Similarweb, a social-media analytics company, the week after the election corresponded with the biggest spike in account deactivations on X since Musk’s takeover of the site. Many of these users have fled to Bluesky: The Twitter-like microblogging platform has added about 10 million new accounts since October.

In a sense, this is a victory for conservatives: As the left flees and X loses broader relevance, it becomes a more overtly right-wing site. But the right needs liberals on X.

As each wave departs X, the site gradually becomes less valuable to those who stay, prompting a cycle that slowly but surely diminishes X’s relevance.

Of course, if X becomes more explicitly right wing, it will be a far bigger conservative echo chamber than either Gab or Truth Social.

Still, the right successfully completing a Gab-ification of X doesn’t mean that moderates and everyone to the left of them would have to live on a platform dominated by the right and mainline conservative perspectives. It would just mean that even more people with moderate and liberal sympathies will get disgusted and leave the platform, and that the right will lose the ability to shape wider discourse.

The conservative activist Christopher Rufo, who has successfully seeded moral panics around critical race theory and DEI hiring practices, has directly pointed to X as a tool that has let him reach a general audience.

This utility becomes diminished when most of the people looking at X are just other right-wingers who already agree with them. The fringier, vanguard segments of the online right seem to understand this and are trying to follow the libs to Bluesky.

Liberals and the left do not need the right to be online in the way that the right needs liberals and the left. The nature of reactionary politics demands constant confrontations—literal reactions—to the left. People like Rufo would have a substantially harder time trying to influence opinions on a platform without liberals. “Triggering the libs” sounds like a joke, but it is often essential for segments of the right. This explains the popularity of some X accounts with millions of followers, such as Libs of TikTok, whose purpose is to troll liberals.

The more liberals leave X, the less value it offers to the right, both in terms of cultural relevance and in opportunities for trolling.

Archive.today link

Some key excerpts:

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) announced Wednesday that transgender women are not permitted to use bathrooms in the Capitol that match their gender identity

The policy [...] will also apply to bathrooms in House office buildings, changing rooms and locker rooms.

Johnson’s statement — which was made on Transgender Day of Remembrance, recognized annually to memorialize trans people who died due to anti-trans violence — comes days after Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) introduced a bill to bar transgender women from facilities on Capitol Hill that match their gender identity, a response to the election earlier this month of Rep.-elect Sarah McBride (D-Del.).

McBride blasted Mace’s legislation earlier this week, calling it “a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing.”

Mace was threatening to force a vote on the matter prior to Johnson’s decision to formally announce the new policy; the congresswoman wanted the terms to be included in the rules package for the 119th Congress and said she would force a vote on the bill if that did not come to fruition.

Archive.org link

Some key excerpts:

House Speaker Mike Johnson signaled support Tuesday for a Republican effort to ban Democrat Sarah McBride — the first transgender person to be elected to Congress — from using women’s restrooms in the Capitol once she’s sworn into office next year.

A resolution proposed Monday by GOP Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina would prohibit any lawmakers and House employees from “using single-sex facilities other than those corresponding to their biological sex.” Mace said the bill is aimed specifically at McBride, who was elected to the House this month from Delaware.

At least 11 states have adopted laws barring transgender girls and women from girls and women’s bathrooms at public schools, and in some cases other government facilities.

[Mace] added that Johnson assured her the bathroom provision would be included in any changes to House rules for the next Congress.

Archive.org link

Some key excerpts:

A contingent of Democratic lawmakers rallied Tuesday evening to vote down a controversial bill that would have granted President-elect Donald Trump broad powers to censor and punish his political opponents.

Despite previous bipartisan support, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act — which would allow the Treasury Department unilateral authority to revoke the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit it designates as a “terrorist supporting organization” — hit a roadblock in Congress in the form of Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, who led the charge against the bill in large part due to Trump’s reelection.

In a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives, 145 Democrats and one Republican voted “nay” — barely enough to deny the bill the two-thirds majority it needed to pass under “suspension of the rules,” a procedure used to fast-track bills with broad bipartisan support.

An earlier version of the bill had passed the House with near unanimous support before it languished in committee in the Senate.

Under the provisions of the bill, the Treasury secretary would have been authorized to unilaterally designate any nonprofit group deemed to be a supporter of terrorism, giving the group just 90 days to respond to a notice. After those 90 days, if appeals were unsuccessful, the group would be stripped of its tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status. Such a measure would likely cripple any nonprofit, and even if an appeal was successful, critics said, it would leave a mark that could scare away donors.

In the run-up to the vote, a number of Democrats spoke out in opposition, including members of the Squad such as Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Cori Bush, D-Mo.

The majority of Democrats in the House agreed, despite most of them having supported the previous iteration of the bill. Just 52 Democrats wound up backing the bill

It’s unclear if or how the bill’s supporters — including its author, Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., and co-sponsor Brad Schneider, D-Ill. — plan to advance it. The bill could easily return in the next legislative session. But the rallying of Democratic opposition and the loss of a Democratic co-sponsor indicate that it is unlikely to enjoy its previous bipartisan backing, according to Kia Hamadanchy, a senior policy counsel with the ACLU.

Archive.org link

Some key excerpts:

Up for a potential fast-track vote next week in the House of Representatives, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, also known as H.R. 9495, would grant the secretary of the Treasury Department unilateral authority to revoke the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit deemed to be a “terrorist supporting organization.”

The resolution has already prompted strong opposition from a wide range of civil society groups, with more than 100 organizations signing an open letter issued by the American Civil Liberties Union in September.

“This is about stifling dissent and to chill advocacy, because people are going to avoid certain things and take certain positions in order to avoid this designation,” Hamadanchy told The Intercept.

The current version — which was introduced by Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., and co-sponsored by Brad Schneider, D-Ill., and Dina Titus, D-Nev. — is paired with a provision that would provide tax relief to American hostages held by terror groups and other Americans unjustly imprisoned abroad.

Hamadanchy said combining the two provisions was likely a ploy to push the nonprofit-terror bill through with as little opposition as possible.

The law would not require officials to explain the reason for designating a group, nor does it require the Treasury Department to provide evidence.

“It basically empowers the Treasury secretary to target any group it wants to call them a terror supporter and block their ability to be a nonprofit,” said Ryan Costello, policy director at the National Iranian American Council Action, which opposes the law. “So that would essentially kill any nonprofit’s ability to function. They couldn’t get banks to service them, they won’t be able to get donations, and there’d be a black mark on the organization, even if it cleared its name.”

The bill could also imperil the lifesaving work of nongovernmental organizations operating in war zones and other hostile areas where providing aid requires coordination with groups designated as terrorists by the U.S.

If it proceeds, the bill will go to the House floor in a “suspension vote,” a fast-track procedure that limits debate and allows a bill to bypass committees and move on to the Senate as long as it receives a two-thirds supermajority in favor.

The new bill on terror designations for tax-exempt nonprofits, however, would slash through the pesky red tape — constitutional checks and balances — of due process, presumption of innocence, and other protections afforded to defendants accused in criminal court of providing material support to terror groups.

“The danger is much broader than just groups that work on foreign policy,” said Costello. “It could target major liberal funders who support Palestinian solidarity and peace groups who engage in protest. But it could also theoretically be used to target pro-choice groups, and I could see it being used against environmental groups.

I just finished watching Star Trek Discovery a day or two ago and it didn't really hit me until I was reading about Calypso, but it feels like the show-runners are very pessimistic about the concept of a Federation. I am not sure if this is considered old news, but I would be interested in examining the show-runners' outlooks more closely.

While the collapse of the Federation is in a way no fault of its own (the Federation didn't cause the burn); the idea that all it would take would be a scarcity of gas to break up the interplanetary union feels counter to the original ideals of Star Trek's optimism.

The idea that teamwork and ingenuity can overcome most adversity feels integral to Star Trek (at least to me), so the idea that running out of fossil fuels is all it would take to split up the Galaxy's largest symbol of unity feels out of place.

This is an especially powerful slap in the face when in Season 5 they have developed the Pathway Drive after only a few years of working together again. It felt as though there was truly not a strong enough reason for the Federation to collapse and be on the brink of destruction than the fact the show-runners really like the Federation falling apart.

You could make the case that it also has to do with the destruction of most of their fleet, but in Season 1 basically all of Starfleet is destroyed, and that's hardly even referenced again.

As an aside, in the five seasons of Discovery, I think the Federation has fallen (to varying degrees) four times.

1. Reduced to a single star-base and a handful of ships by the Klingons
2. Completely overtaken by Control
3. The collapse after The Burn
4. Becoming the V'Draysh in Calypso

In regards to the V'Draysh concept, I am willing to cut the writers a little slack, because from a meta perspective it feels like Calypso was originally intended to go between Season 2 and 3. This is fully a guess on my part, but I suspect at the time of writing/filming Calypso there might have been a more vague idea of what was wrong with the Federation in the future and the method of time travel to the future may not have been locked down yet. I would not be surprised if the V'Draysh was going to be the Federation in Season 3 and the crew would somehow find themselves on Discovery after it waited in place for 1000 years.

Having said that, though, the writers decided to canonize Calypso as taking place after Discovery ends, so it could be considered a fourth collapse (though technically the V'Draysh are never canonically recognized as the Federation, so there is some wiggle room).

While these are much more minor points by comparison, I would also like to address the phaser design in the future as well as the Progenitors philosophy differences between Season 5 of Discovery and TNG.

While a minor gripe, I thought returning the phaser form factor to a more gun-shaped form was also indicative of the show-runners' head-space.

Phasers went from looking like futuristic laser guns in TOS to looking something like an electric razor in TNG. While this made them less "cool," it signaled a priority on peace and diplomacy. While phasers were weapons, their presence was solely utilitarian and not for intimidation.

Discovery's return to the gun-shaped phasers feels like an out of universe emphasis on "coolness" and action, and an in-universe departure from the emphasis on diplomacy.

You could make the case that this now scrappier Federation no longer had the luxury of diplomacy to rely on, but it still feels pessimistic to think the Federation would abandon their ideals in times of hardship.

As I said, I know it's a comparatively minor gripe to put so much weight into a relatively small prop, but I feel like there is a lot to be said about design language and what it implies about the world of the show.

Finally, there is the issue of the Progenitors. I am positive I am not the first person to say this, but there is a definitive shift from the Progenitors wanting all their disparate species to come together in the unifying pursuit of knowledge to them saying "whoever gets here first is the best and can use this godly power however they want."

This shift from the ideal being universal brotherhood to focusing on being the best species reflects the show-runners' own lack of priority on the concept, which is reflected in their repeated destruction of the Federation.

I understand the idea of wanting your show/movie to be "gritty" and "realistic" (see every DC superhero movie after The Dark Knight), but it's out of place in a show as optimistic as Star Trek.

I'm not sure such an open-ended question can be definitively answered, but why didn't the Discovery show-runners believe in the Federation?

I've noticed a rise in enamel pins over the past few years and enjoy them as a compact and durable piece of art.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to use the pins I have amassed over the years; hence my question of what you do with your pins.

While this isn't news about new technology, I thought it was an interesting look about how predatory EULAs can still hurt us even years later in seemingly unrelated ways

Archive.org link

Some key excerpts:

After a doctor suffered a fatal allergic reaction at a Disney World restaurant, Disney is trying to get her widower’s wrongful death lawsuit tossed by pointing to the fine print of a Disney+ trial he signed up for years earlier.

Tangsuan was “highly allergic” to dairy and nuts, and they chose that particular restaurant in part because of its promises about accommodating patrons with food allergies, according to the lawsuit filed in a Florida circuit court.

They allegedly raised the issue upfront, inquired about the safety of specific menu items, had the server confirm with the chef that they could be made allergen-free and asked for confirmation “several more times” after that.

After about 45 minutes, Tangsuan “began having severe difficulty breathing and collapsed to the floor.”

“The medical examiner's investigation determined that [Tangsuan’s] cause of death was as a result of anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system,” according to the lawsuit.

He is seeking more than $50,000 in damages and trial by jury “on all issues so triable.”

In late May, Disney’s lawyers filed a motion asking the circuit court to order Piccolo to arbitrate the case — with them and a neutral third party in private, as opposed to publicly in court — and to pause the legal proceedings in the meantime.

The reason it says Piccolo must be compelled to arbitrate? A clause in the terms and conditions he signed off on when he created a Disney+ account for a month-long trial in 2019.

Disney says Piccolo agreed to similar language again when purchasing park tickets online in September 2023. Whether he actually read the fine print at any point, it adds, is “immaterial.”

“Piccolo ignores that he previously created a Disney account and agreed to arbitrate ‘all disputes’ against ‘The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates’ arising ‘in contract, tort, warranty, statute, regulation, or other legal or equitable basis,’” the motion reads, arguing the language is broad enough to cover Piccolo’s claims.

“There is simply no reading of the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement which would support the notion that Mr. Piccolo agreed to arbitrate claims arising from injuries sustained by his wife at a restaurant located on premises owned by a Disney theme park or resort which ultimately led to her death,” [Piccolo's legal team] wrote in the 123-page filing.

They confirmed he did create a Disney+ account on his PlayStation in 2019, but he believes he canceled the subscription during the trial because he hasn’t found any charges associated with it after that point.

“In effect, WDPR is explicitly seeking to bar its 150 million Disney+ subscribers from ever prosecuting a wrongful death case against it in front of a jury even if the case facts have nothing to with Disney+,” they wrote.

The court has scheduled a hearing on Disney’s motion for October 2.

Archive link: http://archive.today/c0FEu

Some key highlights:

Dave & Buster’s [...] recently announced plans to let patrons place real-money bets on the company’s main attraction: its arcade games.

The suburban gaming den’s new betting operation is part of a partnership with Lucra Sports, a technology company that describes its product as “gamification services.” In practical terms, Lucra licenses its software to other businesses, allowing them to integrate certain kinds of betting into their existing apps and websites. Lucra deals in the kinds of bookie-free “peer to peer” bets—say, on the results of a night of bowling or a game of pickup basketball—that might have previously been sealed with a handshake.

The chain is expected to roll out all of this in the coming months, and it will be available only to adults

Beyond that, neither Dave & Buster’s nor Lucra Sports—which both declined to comment—is saying what kinds of betting will be allowed and at what scale.

Gambling on games of skill has a much easier time cruising past legal roadblocks.

Because of these legal distinctions, Lucra Sports—which has financial backing from a host of sports executives and professional athletes, including former Milwaukee Bucks owner Marc Lasry and former NFL player Emmanuel Sanders—says its services are legal on some level in 45 US states.

Even in their relatively milquetoast skill-game form, these kinds of betting services normalize something that feels a lot like traditional gambling as most Americans now experience it

Kids too young to grasp how football works or what betting on it might mean will soon be able to encounter a version of it at the arcade, potentially priming them to open their own betting accounts once they hit legal age.

That Dave & Buster’s would decide to dive in right now is best read as an indicator of just how nervous traditional entertainment industries have become about gambling and its capacity to devour their customer base and its disposable income. In its 2022 annual report, Dave & Buster’s identified the spread of legalized gambling as an existential threat, even as the company was continuing to grow and its stock price was soaring.

this move feels motivated more by the fear of being left behind while others profit than by a genuine belief in the value of the product itself.

The vision that’s dancing in executives’ heads, I have no doubt, is something akin to the opportunity to be a little Las Vegas in every American suburb. They should probably be more wary of the likelier—and grimmer—alternative: becoming something closer to most of the other casinos in America, where no parent would ever dream of throwing their kid’s birthday party.

Archive.org link

Some highlights I found interesting:

After Tinucci had cut between 15% and 20% of staffers two weeks earlier, part of much wider layoffs, they believed Musk would affirm plans for a massive charging-network expansion.

Musk, the employees said, was not pleased with Tinucci’s presentation and wanted more layoffs. When she balked, saying deeper cuts would undermine charging-business fundamentals, he responded by firing her and her entire 500-member team.

The departures have upended a network widely viewed as a signature Tesla achievement and a key driver of its EV sales.

Despite the mass firings, Musk has since posted on social media promising to continue expanding the network. But three former charging-team employees told Reuters they have been fielding calls from vendors, contractors and electric utilities, some of which had spent millions of dollars on equipment and infrastructure to help build out Tesla’s network.

Tesla's energy team, which sells solar and battery-storage products for homes and businesses, was tasked with taking over Superchargers and calling some partners to close out ongoing charger-construction projects, said three of the former Tesla employees.

Tinucci was one of few high-ranking female Tesla executives. She recently started reporting directly to Musk, following the departure of battery-and-energy chief Drew Baglino, according to four former Supercharger-team staffers. They said Baglino had historically overseen the charging department without much involvement from Musk.

Two former Supercharger staffers called the $500 million expansion budget a significant reduction from what the team had planned for 2024 - but nonetheless a challenge requiring hundreds of employees.

Three of the former employees called the firings a major setback to U.S. charging expansion because of the relationships Tesla employees had built with suppliers and electric utilities.

Archive.org link

Some key excerpts:

Court filings unsealed last week allege Meta created an internal effort to spy on Snapchat in a secret initiative called “Project Ghostbusters.” Meta did so through Onavo, a Virtual Private Network (VPN) service the company offered between 2016 and 2019 that, ultimately, wasn’t private at all.

It’s Meta’s in-house wiretapping tool to spy on data analytics from Snapchat starting in 2016, later used on YouTube and Amazon. This involved creating “kits” that can be installed on iOS and Android devices, to intercept traffic for certain apps, according to the filings. This was described as a “man-in-the-middle” approach to get data on Facebook’s rivals, but users of Onavo were the “men in the middle.”

Facebook ultimately shut down Onavo in 2019 after Apple booted the VPN from its app store.

Prosecutors also allege that Facebook violated the United States Wiretap Act, which prohibits the intentional procurement of another person’s electronic communications. Onavo could also be considered straight spyware, but also seems to fall under the definition of wiretapping, according to prosecutors.

The court filings show chats and emails that depict Zuckerberg as being directly involved in these communications.

Prosecutors allege Project Ghostbusters harmed competition in the ad industry, adding weight to their central argument that Meta is a monopoly in social media.