That's not Lidarr's fault though. Lidarr gets the data from MusicBrainz, and MusicBrainz is very community driven. So if no one adds data to it, they won't have the data automatically.
Also, the music piracy scene is just not as standardised as movie and TV shows. It's hard to automate when every releaser uses different naming format.
There's a reason why they insist that you all get MATLAB, and it's because of compatibility. Like you've mentioned in your story, there's one function that wasn't working on Octave. If they don't standardise and let every student decide themselves which software they want to use, every different software will probably have different incompatibility and different functions will be broken on different software and a lot of resources would need to be spent on debugging for all the different softwares out there.
There's no reason that standard should be MATLAB though.
Using "Low" would be more infuriating than "Lo".
The full words are "High" (not "Hi") and "Low", so to save space they use the first two letters "Hi" and "Lo". If they use "Hi" and "Low" it would be inconsistent, e.g. more infuriating.
Stuff like call screening in the android dialer would be possible on any brand of device. But no, pixel only.
Other OEMs also have their own features that are exclusive to their own phones. They can also implement them into AOSP, but they don't. Instead, they keep the features to their own devices. A lot of times when there's a new feature on Android in general, more often than not you'll see comments like "Samsung had this since years ago".
So if other OEMs are allowed to have platform specific features, Google is allowed to have theirs too. Or in other words, if you want to hold Google responsible for holding back Android, you have to also hold other OEMs responsible too.
You'd be surprised
It's supposed to be on sale digitally today on Prime Video, iTunes, and Microsoft Store in the UK.
Agree. People like to act like Lemmy is a utopia where privacy is always protected and what not. The fact is when it comes down to it, the admins have to comply with the law. If a warrant shows up at their door, they got no choice but to give up information.
We were armchair warriors on Reddit. Now, we are armchair warriors on Lemmy. insert spidermen pointing fingers at each other meme here
TL;DR: If you want to use Tesla's charger patent, you're allowing Tesla to steal your patent and you can't sue Tesla for it, even if the patent is not related to charging technology.
Well yes, but to use it the company will have to give up a lot.
From https://www.makeuseof.com/why-manufacturers-dont-use-tesla-superchargers/:
Tesla offers its patents free of charge and won't launch a lawsuit against any company using them. This sounds great, but this only applies to companies acting in "good faith", as defined Tesla's Patent Pledge. This clause has significant business implications and explains why many haven't utilized Tesla's patents.
According to Nicholas Collura, an attorney writing for Duane Morris LLP, using Tesla's patents forfeits a company's right to bring action against Tesla for any form of copyright infringement—not just in relation to the patents. Essentially, if Tesla stole a company's software code, that company would need to give up any protections offered under Tesla's Patent Pledge to pursue legal action.
Furthermore, and even more importantly, using Tesla's patents means that a company cannot assert its own patent right against any other electric vehicle company. This is especially risky for companies that rely on patents to gain a competitive edge.
The terms also deem that a company can't challenge any Tesla patent, including those outside of the Patent Pledge, nor can it have any financial involvement in a company that does so. Collura notes the vagueness of this, saying that "Tesla could argue that a supplier has a financial stake in its customer's challenge of a Tesla patent."
A Google search for "France phone camera" only gives this posted link and dailymail.co.uk article, both of which are not really trustworthy sources, IMO.
So I'm gonna go with "this is very possibly fake news".
A Google search for "France phone camera" only gives this posted link and dailymail.co.uk article, both of which are not really trustworthy sources, IMO.
So I'm gonna go with "this is very possibly fake news".
Yes. As with all too good to be true things, even if it's true, people will abuse it and force to be not true anymore.