Wait till you hear about the idiots who unironically make that argument for banning Bitcoin too
It seems like the headline is deliberately written to be funny (I did get a good laugh out of it) and the actual event isn't quite as nottheoniony. My understanding is that the court faced the question of whether the lawsuit could proceed against the doctor individually, or against the insurance company. It's bizzare but rather unsurprising and understandable that the lawyers of a doctor faced with such a claim would try, even if it's likely to fail, to have it pushed via the insurance company.
The court made the right decision of course, but this just seems like business as usual for lawsuits.
Copying is not theft. Letting only massive and notoriously untransparent corporations control an emerging technology is.
This should be the default systemwide.
Is your IPv6 behind NAT (like on a VPN)? See https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Mullvad#Preferring_IPv6_inside_the_tunnel
Benzene is used to make a large portion of all chemicals in existence, as it is a basic building block of organic chemistry. That doesn't mean it's in the final product.
This is an asinine headline capitalizing on scientific illiteracy for clickbait. No different than complaining about dihydrogen monoxide in food.
I think there's a bit more to it than that.
It's very unfortunate that this came as a result of a baseless tantrum from Elon. And his arguments are contrary to free speech.
That said... GARM is actually bad, and the world is a better place without it in my opinion. They are frequently involved in censoring legitimate journalism of violent events, anything that's inappropriate from children, etc. You know how so many YouTubers have to carefully tiptoe around mention of controversial topics, even in non-controversial contexts, for fear of getting demonetized? I understand the POV of avoiding advertising near hate, but the fallout has real consequences when legitimate content is inevitably caught up.
Another way to see it is that GARM is simply a trade organization by advertisers for advertisers, with one single goal: to maximize profits for the advertising industry. No corporation actually cares about ethics; it's just that appearing to be ethical is often profitable, and in this case, advertisers believe that avoiding advertising near controversial content is better for their bottom line. If one believes that advertising is one of the most abusive industries in our modern society, it could be seen that anything to make it a little harder for advertisers to extract more profits is a win.
I won't shed a tear for the advertising industry
My guess is he's illiterate and thinks that's her real name
Accessing printers? Resolving hostnames of internal hosts? I can't imagine having a lan without mDNS
I don't think it's quite as simple as someone just forking it. Realistically, a browser is an extremely complex piece of software that requires a lot of organizational effort to maintain, deal with security issues, etc. Pretty much every other piece of software on a similar scale I can think of (the kernel, KDE, Blender, Libreoffice) has some sort of organization behind it with at least some amount of officially paid work. All the major forks of Firefox or chromium follow quite closely to upstream for this reason (which is also why I'm skeptical of Brave's ability to maintain manifest v2 long term, despite their probably genuine best efforts to do so).
I do wish that Firefox were developed and funded by an organization specifically dedicated to developing it. This could of course happen if Mozilla dies. But that's going to require someone starting it, which is not at all a small or cheap task.
I could also see a future where Oracle or IBM buys it 😂🤡
Highly doubt that would happen. If anything, the current court would the project 2025 censorship agenda and support the Protect Act provisions that were already (correctly) struck down in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (it was just that time's edition of the overbroad "protect the children!!!" bill that did some good and some bad; most of what remains today and hasn't been struck down is good though). It's also not the law criminalizing CP so that could be where his argument might fail. (nevermind; he's talking about the provision that extends the statute of limitations)
I think this will change. Nvidia hired devs on Nouveau, NVK is coming along, etc
Some of it probably comes from other companies that are unable or unwilling to relicense it even if Nvidia wanted to
A year ago, the majority of Lemmy was vehemently in support of banning porn
It is based on the assumption that every piece of code in the entire stack from the UEFI firmware to the operating system userspace is free of vulnerabilities
Lol that's hilarious. I laugh so much at the crazy mixing of units we use here in the US. Similarly, it's quite common to see metric and customary units in the same sentence, as in "add 1 tablespoon to 100 mL of water".
Looks like the birdie has escaped phoronix...
In the small chance that this comment is serious, Nvidia is found this because the corporate server-based customers need the ability to troubleshoot and debug the driver.
The actual trade secrets are being moved into the proprietary firmware blob and out of the driver.