GreyEyedGhost

It's true you will never get rid of all of it but, just like crime, basic enforcement is a deterrence. They know who's buying, they know where they're shipped, they have a fair idea if they're returned. Just requiring reviews to be from purchasers after they've received the product, removing positive reviews for returns without replacement (or flagging them as returned), and a few other steps would make fake reviews either very expensive or very expensive for the results.

The fact is, Amazon makes most of their money on AWS, and I don't think they care to put in the real effort to make their marketplace trustworthy again. Without that, it will continue its downward spiral.

He may have honored his parents. He looks like mommy and acts like daddy.

Won't keep fake reviews off their platform. It's not a matter of ability, but of will.

It's sort of a flawed opinion. If you're never charging at home and doing a lot of driving, a hybrid won't make much difference and might cost more. If you're conscientious about charging when you can and mostly drive within range of your battery's capacity, it can be almost as effective as full electric. Stats indicate most PHEV owners use the the same way you would use an ICE, car, which is more expensive and a bit of a waste.

I think you mean the 2010 G20 summit. The 2011 summit was in Cannes.

Even the RPi, which has major Linux support has a blob for its graphics driver (at least the last time I checked). And I wouldn't exactly say Broadcom is falling over themselves to support Linux. Qualcomm, less so.

There is nothing stopping a GPL project using MIT-licensed code except for lack of desire to do the work. They are one-way compatible.

It really depends. If the contract gives ownership of the work created to the purchaser, he has no rights to it whatsoever. Moreover, trying to do a clean room implementation of your own code is almost impossible without help. A permissive license would give the purchaser unlimited use of the product, including resale while still allowing the producer unlimited use, as well. If the contract is written correctly, the producer might even retain ownership, with the right to use different licenses, while the purchaser would have few or no restrictions.

I'll throw my opinions in here.

If you're publishing a standard or a reference application, a permissive license makes sense. What better way to guarantee compatibility than being able to use the reference code in your product. This is what happened with the TCP/IP stack, and it was used in its original form in Windows for years.

If you're making something that you want to build a community around, something more akin to the GPL may be more aligned with your goals. The nice part is, you can include MIT licensed projects as part of your GPL project. This means there is nothing stopping you from building your standard with a MIT license while building your community-driven application using GPL, maximizing the reach of your standard while reducing the risk to your community.

Note that either option opens you to EEE (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish), the GPL option just takes an extra step (clean room implementation of a published standard).

That's not what "at the root" means. The guy selling himself and his country is the final part, the branch as it were. The root is the source of the money.

As for your reasoning, being able to further track intermediaries and see what else they have their fingers in is good security policy, as is sending back disinformation until such time as it becomes known the subject is compromised. Throwing these guys under the bus is usually the last step in the process.

Ideas aren't real, either, and they've hurt a lot of people.

Yeah, they had a drive train, and no real path forward. Even with piles of cash, it took years to get something that resembled a finished product.