nymwit

I can't believe I ever trusted consumer reports after I read up on how they purposely distorted their Suzuki samurai testing. The CR own record video shows they were determined to roll it.

I think the photocopying thing models fairly well with user licenses for software. Without commenting on whether that's right in the grand scheme of things, I can see that as analogous. Most folks accept that they need individual user licenses for software right? I get that photocopying can't be controlled the same way software can but the case was in the 90s? I mean these things aren't about whether the provider of the article/software faces increased marginal cost for additional copies/users but that the user/company is getting more use than they paid for. License agreements. Seems like a problem with the terms of licenses and laws rather than how they were judged as following them or not. Their use didn't seem to be transformative and the for profit nature of their use sort of overruled the "research" fair use.

I also think the mp3.com thing sucks, but again, the way the law is, that's a reasonable/logical outcome. Same thing that will kill someone offering ebooks to people who show a proof of purchase.

I don't know the solution to the situation with NYT/open AI. It's a pretty bad look to be able to spit out an article nearly verbatim. We do need copyright reform, but I think that's at the feet of the legislators, not judges. I only need to see the recent Alabama IVF court ruling to be reminded of the danger of more... interpretative rulings.

I'm with you. Ads are annoying but I sort of wish there was (maybe just more around here?) acknowledgement of that's just how the service gets paid for. I don't adblock anything. If I can't stand the ads I don't use it. I just ignore them. Maybe I'm old and grew up with broadcast tv. I'd rather be subjected to internet ads than have to pay (real currency) at every site I go to. Folks can Adblock all they want but I don't see how that's any better than corpo short term quarterly earning thinking vs long term wide range impacts consideration.

Maybe don't hold it in China again if they're so worried about this sort of thing? They didn't think that through did they? You think they might with, you know, science fiction often commenting on real life things through speculative analogues. They cowardly caved to just the idea of repercussions. Nothing in the article says the committee was actually under pressure from anyone to do what they did. Weak!

pixelscript@lemmy.ml got it, but basically lasers are pretty inefficient. The article I just found said (in a different run of this facility) they put 400MJ into the laser to get 2.5MJ out of it. So that makes the whole firing system what, 0.6% efficient? Your fusion reaction would have to give more than 400MJ to truly be in the positive for this particular setup/method, but again this facility is a research one and not meant to generate power - there isn't even a way to harness/collect it here.

I can't read the full article (paywalled for me) but it references the National Ignition Facility so the way it goes is super lasers blast a tiny hydrogen thing and that creates a tiny bit of fusion that releases the energy. The energy of the laser blast is what's being called the input and the fusion energy released the output. What is misleading is that a greater amount of energy was used create the laser blast than the laser blast itself outputs. If you consider the energy that went into creating the laser blast the input (rather than the laser blast itself), then it's usually not a net positive energy release.

Microwave transmission is what's usually said, then someone says anything in the beam's path will get zapped, then it's pointed out the energy density isn't that high. Just wanted to shortcut that for ya

Your cynicism is warranted but a big part of the advertised value is that their rcs implementation is end to end encrypted. Or they say it is, which presumably someone (not me!) would be able to verify.

It's weird because it is a standard but Google's implementation is not really the standard. For insurance, the standard does not use end to end encryption, Google does. Their implementation also runs over their own Jibe servers rather than carrier stuff. You gotta be a Google bestie with muscle like Samsung to get your rcs client on Android seems like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services

Do you have information on it supporting rcs? I don't see anything on the play store mentioning it. The first Google results I see say it doesn't. Seems like it would be a big deal because if they did and would be prominently displayed as I thought only Google messages and Samsung messages supported rcs.

https://chomp.uservoice.com/knowledgebase/articles/1895488-rcs-implementation

Come on, the same bread? That's crazy. How can that work?

For your used things for sure, the seller being reputable and the items being less common works well. Common items (like that knock off Switch dock above) that can be faked are tough because even if you buy product X from seller A, all product Xs can be in the same bin at the warehouse and Amazon just grabs one and ships. if Seller B is pushing a hard-to-distinguish knock off that Amazon believes is product X, then one might end up with that one and think seller A is to blame. That sort of mistake is definitely Amazon's fault in my view. You can end up with knock off stuff when buying from the official brand's store on Amazon for crying out loud.