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.

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.

It was specifically about the Christian God because all others were "obviously" incorrect. It's terrible logic because it discounts:

1. God somehow doesn't know you're believing in him "just in case" rather than because of actual faith.
2. The wager implies that you should be an adherent of the religion that gets you the most stuff in the afterlife.

Not sure it's just anti-Biden but people do need to understand on matters like this, they need to mentally apply an asterisk that says "subject to approval by Congress."

You can't get a copyright on an AI-generated image, but if the AI-generated image was done in the style of a certain work, it could be considered a derivative work.

Have no income.

Costs for services are basically made up. It's incredibly complicated but I'll give an example.

My last doctor appointment was billed at $220. I am in-network (which means my insurer has negotiated specific rates) so the insurance company says "you can only charge our insureds $105 for that service. We'll pay $80. The patient is responsible for the rest."

If I didn't have insurance, I'd be on hook for the full $220. If the doctor was out-of-network, my insurance company would pay what they thought was reasonable and I'd be on the hook for the rest.

The $220 is just whatever the doctor feels like billing. It's not based on anything other than "I feel like $220 is what my time is worth."

Wait a minute. I'm not gay.

Getting in trouble for calling long distance...

This works if you realize the slave in this case is the pregnant woman.