![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/8nN0qtLEOJ.png)
If you read carefully this is actually very similar to the Steam news. I doubt Valve or GOG care, but generally the games are “sold” by the publisher as non transferable licenses for you to play them. So the part that matters isn’t up to them.
If you read carefully this is actually very similar to the Steam news. I doubt Valve or GOG care, but generally the games are “sold” by the publisher as non transferable licenses for you to play them. So the part that matters isn’t up to them.
Have you tried recent models? They’re not perfect no, but they can usually get you most of the way there if not all the way. If you know how to structure the problem and prompt, granted.
Them using Google indexes anonymously isn’t intending to solve the problem you think it is. It’s more about incentive structures. Google’s “free” search optimizes for ad revenue now. The API access doesn’t as much, and Kagi certainly doesn’t have an ad incentive. So privacy is a nice bonus, but the real benefit is a customer serving incentive structure.
Wonder how we should interpret the country “XD” being on the list. As far as I can tell its never been used for any real country.
This must be pandering to shareholders, no company in their right mind would want to compete when Meta is selling their first party headset at a giant loss.
The idea that “it’s ok cause we’d do the same” is ridiculous. There is no comparison: China is an authoritarian government and the parent company is practically an arm of the state. There are legitimate criticisms of American tech companies obviously, but they’re ultimately subject to the market and democratic governments. We shouldn’t be doing any business with authoritarians in the first place, much less inviting them to control a significant social media app in the guise of a legitimate business.
It’s not really special treatment. Generally, it’s understood that the defendant will use a bond company and put up a fraction of the cash. They are trying to balance the defendants appeal rights with not postponing the judgement forever. He’s actually tying up significantly more money this way than he would with a bond.
The actual judgement, should he lose appeal, isn’t reduced.
For people lacking context, Boeing split off and sold their division that became Spriti Aerosystems. The theory at the time was that Boeing’s core competency wasn’t building airplanes, it was managing relationships with other vendors. In particular, the actual plane manufacturing part of the company was undesirable due to perceived poor “Return on Net Assets.” The theory they pitched to shareholders was they should sell off non obviously profitable divisions so they reduced asset liability while keeping the same or better profits.
That was their explanation, of course it was a terrible idea.