nybble41

They could stick to public domain & indie titles. They won't, but they could.

It's a case of overlapping coverage. Her personal insurance company isn't disputing that the uninsured driver was responsible. They're arguing—not unreasonably—that the organizer of the event is more directly responsible for damages incurred while participating in their event (after the driver, naturally), so their insurance should cover the expense.

No one likes to be caught in the middle of something like this, but at the same time it would be irresponsible of the insurance company, toward both their investors and their other customers, to simply pay out without question when someone else should be paying.

You're restricting speech whether or not you confine your censorship to only AI-generated images.

Correction: Fortunately, not unfortunately. A rule like that would prohibit any form of public / street photography, news videos, surveillance videos, family photos with random strangers in the background... it's not reasonable at all.

Since you don't understand, quotes denote emphasis or specificity, not emotion.

Actually quotes denote quotations. When used casually around an individual word or short phrase they generally indicate that the writer is emphasizing that these are someone else's words, and that the writer would have chosen a different description. As in: These people are described as "teens" but are probably not only/mostly teenagers. That may not be what you meant, but it's how that text will be read.

If you just want emphasis you might consider using bold or italics rather than quotes.

I'd settle for just the limits, personally.

The part that makes me the most paranoid is the outbound data. They set every VM up with a 5 Gbps symmetric link, which is cool and all, but then you get charged based on how much data you send. When everything's working properly that's not an issue as the data size is predictable, but if something goes wrong you could end up with a huge bill before you even find out about the problem. My solution, for my own peace of mind, was to configure traffic shaping inside the VM to throttle the uplink to a more manageable speed and then set alarms which will automatically shut down the instance after observing sustained high traffic, either short-term or long-term. That's still reliant on correct configuration, however, and consumes a decent chunk of the free-tier alarms. I'd prefer to be able to set hard spending limits for specific services like CPU time and network traffic and not have to worry about accidentally running up a bill.

When it comes to their trademarks Valve can't take a fully hands-off approach without negative consequences. Either they explicitly endorse the use of the Portal name and other branding, in which case they're encouraging and aiding the project and could potentially be caught up in any lawsuit from Nintendo, or they say nothing and allow the trademark to lapse from non-enforcement, or they prohibit the project from using the Portal branding and enforce that prohibition with a lawsuit if needed. Unfortunately for the project, only one of these options retains their trademark and doesn't set them up for a fight with Nintendo.

The GPL in most cases only requires that derivative work must also be shipped with the same license. The source code from providers doesn't have to be distributed by unity, it has to be distributed by the provider.

This is incorrect. The distributor of derivative works in binary form is responsible for providing the source code. They can refer to a server operated by a third party, but if that third party stops providing the source code the distributor remains obligated to ensure that it is still available. The only exception is for binaries which were originally received with a written offer of source code, where the offer can be passed on as-is, but that only applies for "occasional and non-commercial" distribution which wouldn't work here.

These are protesters, not terrorists. A reputable news agency isn't going to take sides one way or the other. The reporting should be structured more like a debate, with both sides allowed to voice their positions in neutral language and offer a rebuttal.

If you can easily tell which side of the issue the presenter is on you're seeing an opinion piece, not news.

Sure, they don't rule the world. They only have the power to ban you (either the company per se or its individual owners, officers, and/or employees) from ever again doing any business in the EU. Which naturally includes business with any individuals or companies either based in the EU (as a seller or a buyer) or wanting to do business in the EU. Or from traveling to the EU, whether for business or personal reasons. Little things like that. Nothing too inconvenient. (/s)

They haven't taken things quite that far—yet. But they could. It's dangerous to assume that you can ignore them without consequences just because your company doesn't currently depend on revenue from EU customers. The world is more interconnected than that, and the consequences may not be limited to your company.

Geoblocking in such cases would not be sufficient. For one thing your geo-IP database will never be perfectly accurate, even without considering that "data subjects who are in the Union" can connect to your site via proxies or VPNs with non-EU IP addresses. For another you still need to respond to GDPR requests e.g. to remove data collected on a data subject currently residing in the EU, even if the data was collected while they were outside the EU, and you can't do that if you're blocking their access to the site. For a newspaper in particular the same would apply to any EU data subject they happened to report on, whether they had previously visited the site or not.

They never should have made opt-in an option in the first place. All the legitimate reasons to store data are already permitted without asking permission (required for the site to function, or storing data the user specifically asked the site to store such as settings). All that's left is things no one would reasonably choose to consent to if they fully understood the question, so they should have just legislated that the answer is always "no". That plus a bit more skepticism about what sites really "need" to perform their function properly. (As that function is understood by the user—advertising is not a primary function of most sites, or desired by their users, so "needed for advertising to work" does not make a cookie "functional" in nature. Likewise for "we need this ad revenue to offer the site for free"; you could use that line to justify any kind of monetization of private user data.)