It's because there's effectively a class-action suit going on right now, but because the user agreement says you have to use arbitration, there were tens of thousands of people who are like "sure let's go to arbitration". Valve is losing tons of money having to fight all the suits.
https://www.classaction.org/steam-antitrust-refund-2023
Note: I am one of the people involved in this suit.
Yeah I read a blog post about why it isn't and the answer was pretty bog-standard answers for why anything is closed-source: "if we make these cool customizations open, then anyone could take it and make a competing product."
https://vivaldi.com/blog/technology/why-isnt-vivaldi-browser-open-source/
There is Safari, which uses a different rendering engine, but yeah, there's basically 3 browsers. Chromium, Safari, and Firefox.
I don't use Safari and never have, so I can't speak to its compatibility or quirks for the user or for developers.
when they flock together they tend to get disruptive and toxic very quickly
Hmm, I wonder why that is?
To be completely fair, in some US states you can deposit a bond (usually surety or treasury) with the government and that counts as your insurance. No one would ever want to do that if they are remotely insurable because it's rather expensive compared to paying insurance premiums.
I would auction it off and then take the proceeds and give it to an organization that is dedicated to fighting fascism.
IANAL. However I know a bit.
which is basically how copyright is handled on corporate social media (Meta/X/Reddit owns license rights to whatever you post on their platform when you click “Agree”).
Yes, this is how it works. You give them a license to your posts.
I’ve noticed some people including Copyright notices in posts (mostly to prevent AI use). Is this necessary, or is the creator the automatic copyright owner?
The creator automatically owns the copyright. People can put in license terms, but they're effectively useless in this context. Let's say OpenAI violates the copyright on your post (it's still an open question whether or not training AI on copyrighted data constitutes copyright infringement, but we'll assume it does). Your only recourse is to sue them if they do this. Because you never registered the copyright, you're limited to recovering actual damages -- if you do register the copyright you can get statutory damages, which are up to $150k per violation. So how much money did you lose on the ability to commercially exploit this post that OpenAI took away from you by copying your posts? Less than the cost to bring the suit, I'm sure.
So the TL;DR here is that the anti-AI licensing thing is only effective if you're registering the copyright on your posts/comments. And even then, that's only true if AI training is considered to be copyright infringement.
No because I don't believe people who are dead can communicate with the living.
I suppose I might not understand the question then. To me having root is more important. I guess I'd say why not? I do not use any functionality that stops working due to SafetyNet or whatever.
Not too worry, the high is going to get to 1 later in the day.
Re: intervention
I think it's a tough sell because building more housing density upsets current NIMBY citizens at the expense of future citizens. People who want to move to Austin, TX, for example, don't have any say in who is on the city council today.
Housing policy is very much driven by people who want to pull the ladder up behind them and ride land appreciation into retirement.
Voting for a minor party in terms of the effect on the outcome is approximately equivalent to not voting.