qw3rty01

This is timecard fraud, not wage theft.

> These solutions are all mathematically consistent. We just don’t know which one of them is correct. And why is that? It’s because we cannot observe black hole evaporation.

> You need data, there is no data, and there won’t be any data. Which is why the black hole information loss problem is for all practical purposes unsolvable.

She didn't say it was inherently unsolvable, only that it was practically unsolvable. There's still the possibility that it could be solved with some other data that doesn't require observing black hole evaporation.

> And while you're at it, ask yourself why you want to make a place you're moving to more like a place that you left because you didn't want to live there anymore.

The point is not voting for politicians that make the place as undesirable as the place you left.

Hmm they seem to be taking it from the approach that RIAA was sending a takedown on the grounds that youtube-dl was infringing on the copyright of their members, but that doesn't seem to be what the actual takedown claims. Instead it's requesting takedown on the grounds that youtube-dl is breaking protection measures in violation of 1201, and the answer given doesn't really address that except to say that breaking protection measures isn't infringement (which wasn't what they claimed in the first place).

EFF represented youtube-dl to get the repository reinstated, and their lawyers instead tried to prove that YouTube doesn't have DRM, and that the test cases provided were neither suggesting other people to infringe, nor infringing themselves (falling under fair use). The full response is here: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/11/2020-11-1...

1060 is budget mid-tier, I don't really see how you could say the 1050ti is anything but low-end when looking at either performance or price

Hmm this isn't really true, DMCA takedown requests aren't just a "legal demand" in the sense that anyone can file them, it actually is illegal to file an invalid DMCA takedown request. My point is that the RIAA's DMCA takedown request was valid. (IANAL) The law is also a lot more nuanced than how you described, since the hypothetical case would probably be thrown out with legal fees covered due to anti-SLAPP laws, but if it didn't fall under that, you probably wouldn't be able to recover legal fees without some sort of counter lawsuit.

That's why I asked, because the takedown request wasn't claiming ownership of the youtube-dl code (or that it was just enabling infringement), it was claiming that youtube-dl was breaking DMCA section 1201, which covers circumventing DRM.

How was the DMCA request invalid?

Looks like it's a bit overloaded.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201106201819/https://www.senti...

EFF never stated that it was an invalid takedown request, just that they believe that youtube-dl has enough legal uses that they think the takedown request was counterproductive.

(IANAL) It doesn't matter if people think RIAA's DMCA isn't legally valid (or even if it isn't actually valid), Github still has to follow section 512 of the DMCA as a service provider, and it's not their responsibility to determine validity of the claim. RIAA is a 3rd party authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder, so they are allowed to send a DMCA takedown. Also the takedown is claiming DMCA section 1201, which is for bypassing DRM, not distributing infringing material.

tl;dr there probably isn't anything inherently wrong with the RIAA's claim, and there's definitely nothing wrong with github's response.

As for DMCAing an oil producer's repository for something unrelated to DMCA, github would still take it down, but it's quite likely that you'd end up with a lawsuit from the oil company for damages. As long as GitHub is run by a US company, it doesn't matter how advocating they are of open source, nothing would change...they'd still take down the repository after receiving a DMCA takedown request.

And the last point, my understanding is apple wasn't actually required to assist the FBI, but american companies are required to follow DMCA.

From the DMCA repository:

> It only means that we received the notice on the indicated date. It does not mean that the content was unlawful or wrong. It does not mean that the user identified in the notice has done anything wrong. We don't make or imply any judgment about the merit of the claims they make. We post these notices and requests only for informational purposes.

(IANAL) Github follows US copyright law (and probably other countries' copyright laws too), so they're required to take it down upon receiving a DMCA takedown request. If it's not a proper request, the repository owner can file a counterclaim, but that would open the repository owner to lawsuits.

Damages include legal fees in the case of DMCA.

While this is true, I was responding to a post about abusing DMCA takedowns, which have the assumption that they're using it to knowingly misrepresent infringement. And even though most abusive DMCA takedowns end up without any counter action, the law does provide a way to fight them, which is the disincentive from "simply send a takedown for anything they don't like no matter whether it is legal or not"

IANAL, but DMCA takedowns do not have "no repercussions" for false claims. If the DMCA takedown was actually baseless, they would be opening themselves up to damage liabilities, as specified under 17 U.S. Code § 512 under section f[1]. This is different than YouTube copyright claims, which as far as I'm aware don't actually have any repercussions for false claims unless YouTube decides to take action[2], since copyright claims on YouTube are not DMCA takedown requests.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512

[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/youtubes-new-lawsuit-s...

The article's definition

It might've just been me misinterpreting, but I thought the parent comment meant that EY would become the "Big One" after auditing the other companies and causing them to implode

I'm not sure where you got the impression that problems such as $300 million in fabricated sales, or $5 billion in undisclosed debt which were missed in audits is an issue with external scrutiny.

My post is specifically pointing out that the wording makes it sound like EY audited the companies and their findings are what caused the companies to implode, which is what the parent comment seemed to assume, but the article actually says that it was the fact that EY did not find problems during their audits, which were later found, causing companies to implode.

The impression from the title is different than what the article actually says--EY missed red flags that resulted in passing the audit when it should have failed, and later scrutiny is what caused the companies to implode.

No, acknowledgement is only required if the license requires it.

Is the uninitialized read example a compiler bug? `i` in the code is definitely initialized, but the compiler creates a temporary variable, where its initialization is bypassed by the switch jump. Isn't that a code generation issue (specifically where it places the jump label)?

Cryptocurrency is certainly not a good place to put savings, as its price is way too unstable to be a store of value. If you're unsure about the value of the USD, then traditional investments like gold would probably be a better choice. Like other comments mention, even though lots of money was created for economic stimulus, it's used in such a way that makes it deflationary long-term (as seen by the projected 0.62% inflation rate for this year and only 2.24% next year[1]).

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/244983/projected-inflati...

It has to be either in equilibrium, or in excess on the side of plants. If it's in excess on the side of humans, people would be dying out due to lack of food, which would then put it back into equilibrium. Deforestation isn't relevant to food because we don't eat trees.

Exhaled CO2 is in equilibrium with plants inhaling CO2 to provide us food, so exhaling isn't considered a factor in global warming.

Breathing out CO2 is not a factor contributing to global warming because it's carbon that's already in the carbon cycle.

This seems to be a review of several different studies on analyzing brain activity and isn't just about the first study shown, so while the original title is a little sensationalist, I think the edited title is pretty accurate to what the article is about. Some of the other studies include one at Carnegie Mellon about phrase prediction, an experiment at the University of Oregon about facial recognition, Neuralink, thought reproduction at Russian Corporation and Moscow institute, etc.

Those ads support the people who created the videos; if you don't subscribe to ads "as a concept", then that's even more a reason to buy youtube premium--the content creators are losing out by your adblockers, not youtube

This just reads like a godot advertisement...it only has good things to say about godot and only bad things to say about any other library. It's really hard to take the article seriously with so much blatant bias. It also seems to leave out any technical information that a developer using the engine would want to know, like how well it integrates with existing code, what paradigms it uses compared to other UI engines, or whether it uses lazy rendering or if it constantly runs at 60fps, etc.

.dev isn't an rfc2606 reserved TLD, so it shouldn't have been used for internal domains in the first place

This seems pretty low, can't we apply Bayes' theorem here?

  let F = transaction being fraud
  let D = detected as fraud
  
  P(F) = 492/284807 = .17%
  P(D|F) = 80%
  P(~F) = 1-P(F) = 99.83%
  P(D|~F) = 13%
  
  P(F|D) = (P(D|F) * P(F)) / (P(F) * P(D|F) + P(~F) * P(D|~F))
  P(F|D) = ((.8) * (.0017)) / ((.0017) * (.8) + (.9983) * (.13))
  P(F|D) = 0.01 = 1% chance of the transaction being fraud given a positive detection

although to be fair, they're not stating to only use this method by itself