HN user
The group exploited a bug in WhatsApp to deliver the spyware. It wasn't an E2E issue.
A U.S. judge ruled on Friday in favor of Meta Platforms' (META.O), opens new tab WhatsApp in a lawsuit accusing Israel's NSO Group of exploiting a bug in the messaging app to install spy software allowing unauthorized surveillance.
There is certainly an economic utility to a more educated populous, but should that cost 30k+ in debt? If the ROI isn't there and the purpose is a general one for the economic benefit of the nation, shouldn't the taxpayer bear the cost of that?
My understanding was that ads pay to be viewed, they can't get paid if you have it on background play and not watching. So they made it a premium feature and get paid by the subscription.
The Courts already have mechanisms to limit "unlimited" subpoenas or requests for discovery. Requests for the software source code or similar, bug reports, and other reports of issues are or would largely not be unreasonable where the key issue is reported thievery, fraud, and mismatched data based on software as the basis for the allegations and prosecution.
Because there isn't much difference in the force between a 1m and a 8000m drop due to the above. So it really comes down to case, angle, and material onto which it was dropped with corners being more vulnerable.
I believe the issue with Lovelace is that you may find less than PG results typing that on a search engine. Hence using Ada primarily on the marketing.
I think the complaint is more with the consumer card being 4xxx but this is 5000 both on the same architecture.
The question would be, do you want to fight Disney lawyers to make the argument that your use was not as a trademark, represented as Disney, or that it might cause confusion? With or without a disclaimer.
It's probably too short. It would live authors with very little bargaining power particularly if they become bigger in their writing carriers. Corporations would just have to wait 20 years and save themselves the exclusive rights and royalties.
It should be looked form the frame of how long is appropriate to promote the creation of the arts etc. Realistically no author is thinking I won't create this art unless I get lifetime + 70.
I would think 50 years total is a much more reasonable figure.
That's why they get you to agree to new terms and conditions with an update, or when there is a new TC you get a lovely email or whatever to ignore. Either you don't accept it so you don't get the update or you don't accept them and you can't continue to use the service if you don't accept the new terms.
The consideration for the change is getting the new features, updates, or using the services.
Most licence terms already include a term to change the terms. So technically once you buy it, install it, and agree to it, you are also agreeing the terms may change. They probably also have arbitration clauses you are agreeing to so you can't directly sue them either.
Nah, because there was a failure with the policy implementation the kid got a proper name and no record that it had changed.
What's the case law that social meedia sites are responsible for the content on their site? Youtube just recently won the ISIS recruitment case as a counter example [0].
[0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1333_6j7a.pdf
Yes and no, I think. If you have a valid exemption under copyright (e.g. fair use) then you don't need a licence for the use or making of the derivative work. Obviously such a defence (e.g. fair use) would likely be very difficult in the context of commercial use of the copyrighted work.
Company: we have "connectedness" issues with remote work Everyone: what have you tried? Company: Nothing, it didn't work, and we are out of ideas. Back to the office.
Genuinely, all these companies raising issues with training, and collaboration, and connection, but in the last 3 years have put zero effort to address these issues with respect to remote work so they throw the baby with the bath water and force people to return.
He created the idea at the beginning of the pandemic. His thought process was that the Mr Beast brand would allow smaller stores to carry his product and incentivise people to buy take out from those shops and help during lockdowns.
I don't believe the contract between him and VDC is out outlining the contractual obligations, SLAs, trademark and marketing issues etc.
Yes. Trademark law says the use of a trademark as a trademark is an issue. Using the discord logo to link to a discord channel is fine. Allowing a site to be named Discord with a different TLD is using a trademark as a trademark and that can have consequences. The whole point of trademark is to distinguish goods/services and by failing to prevent the use of discord.io they kinda dropping the ball here in my opinion.
There is apparently a whole bunch of controversy with the paper being published by one of the authors that had been allegedly kicked out and wanted to ensure he was credited as an author. The other authors were apparently still working on the paper, production methods etc but this unauthorised early publication derailed that.
It would likely fall under "unconscionable conduct" which is illegal under the ACL.
I would imagine it would difficult for them to prevent individual licences being sold through their retail/online mechanisms.. You would have more limited protections if >100,000 in licence fees, and they may or may not have an enterprise programs for those purchasing that many licences. But where they engage in retaliatory behaviour they could be sued and through discovery determine if they refused to engage with you or jack up the prices in retaliation for a lawful complaint. As you can imagine this would be expensive but... you would also likely be at a scale that could afford such litigation.
Some of the protections do apply to business purchases such as section 18 of the ACL which relates to misleading and deceptive conduct and section 29 regarding false or misleading representations. Businesses, will, in some scenarios (they need to meet the definition of consumer under the Act) also have access to consumer guarantees found under s51-59 which provide some of the stronger remedy options including full refunds.
For Australians, if you are affected, this is the kind of issue that should be raised with ACCC at https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/contact-us/report-a-consume....
It falls under the Australian Consumer Protection under misleading or deceptive conduct.[0] A lifetime licence marketed as such cannot be withdrawn let alone with EULA/TOS presented after the purchase.[1] Probably could also get your money back from the retailer/autodesk too if you cannot use the software with your lifetime licence.
[0] https://consumer.gov.au/sites/consumer/files/2016/05/0553FT_...
Such as "No hate speech".
This metaphor doesn't map cleanly to when rules are less specific or laid out - because in this situation, the rules have been well tested and made to be unambiguous!
I disagree, lawyers would have no work then. Laws are not as specific as you would think they are and it is to provide a diverse gamut of powers and broad discretion in their application.
For example, the first amendment does not offer an unlimited right to say what you want, when you want, and however you want. At what point does said speech become prohibited hate speech, inciting violence, verbal assault, defamation etc...?
There is plenty evidence of people exercising free speech such as wearing cuss words on shirts and their speech being stifled by police through intimidation and arrests. Most famously Cohen v California and for example more recently Wood v Eubanks (25 F. 4th 414 - Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 2022) with very similar facts to Cohen v California.
Here is another one "Battery is an unlawful application of force directly or indirectly upon another person or their personal belongings, causing bodily injury or offensive contact." I go onto the bus and my shoulder hits the shoulder of another passenger. I did not have consent to touch them and they are upset by the contact / found it offensive. Am I guilty of battery?
In the test "No vehicle sin the park" there is no ambiguity that an ambulance is a vehicle, but clearly 1/3 of people don't think it breaks the rule, presumably largely because it's for an emergency purpose despite the rule not having an exemption for such a scenario. Neither would a rule that says "no hate speech". What is hate speech? Would speech stating "I hate..." Nazi's or a genocidal leader or regime be hate speech? So what are the exemptions, what are the discretions? How do we define things?
What about support for LGTBQIA+? Some countries only recently have become more amenable to these groups, but plenty of jurisdictions and cultures are still very much opposed to them. Is homophobia hate speech? What is transphobic speech? Is stating there are only two genders transphobic?
The same could be said about support for Ukraine which is positive in the Western world but would be illegal in Russia. But then, what about Taiwan and it's disputed status with respect to China? What about other contested borders and lands?
The fact that even when there is no ambiguity people don't entirely agree whether a simple rule is broken is entirely the point of the exercise. And now, you expect platforms and countries to exercise those rules and laws when evidently people can't even agree on a simple rule.
My employer uses the MS Auth app. Now when logging in, it shows a number on the screen that you have to type on the app and then use the finger print. Before it used to be the fingerprint only. Seems like a relatively effective way to ensure people are not just approving everything prompted by the app.
Considering there is a "calibration" step. I'm going to guess that as long as the "bad" eye behaves relatively predictably, it should be able to ignore the bad input and put appropriate weight on the "good" eye.
It will also be interesting how the outward display will display the "bad" eye input including missing eyes, lazy eyes, nystagmus, etc...
Yes and no. Court decisions do generally follow a structure, but the decisions and the reasons for a final determination, may not always be clear. Judges also may throw in hypotheticals which whilst informative are not determinative. Once it gets to appellate courts and with different judges which may agree with the same outcome but on different grounds, it can get really hard to distinguish what is the test and the factors for a certain determination. It can also happen that dissenting opinions can be very persuasive, and subsequently adopted.
The task effectively also requires a case and paragraph impact meter which do exist in some law databases to one extend or another, effectively weighing how subsequent rulings consider, weight, and follow past cases, caveats, exceptions, and outright considering past rulings as bad law.
Then you have the issue of changing laws and the impact these may have on past cases as they may change the test and requirements needed to be considered and even much new case law needed to be developed to interpret the new legislation. So the model would need to have a historical knowledge of the law and how it was applied.
You would also need to feed it relevant surrounding information that may aid in interpreting said law. In the US, clearly the founding father's opinions and beliefs appear to play a significant part on the currently more originalist interpretative school of thought.
In the UK/Australia for example readings in parliament and even the underpinning reports that prompted the change in legislation may be considered where there is ambiguity in order to interpret legislation. Australian legislation nowadays also tends to incorporate an objective of the legislation and a section that says that where ambiguity exists to interpret it in a way that would further the objectives of the legislation.
So, it's really not a trivial problem.
You jest but I got the following response with the GPT-4 model
Two pounds of feathers are heavier than a pound of bricks. The weight of the feathers is twice as much as the bricks, even though they may take up more space and seem lighter due to their lower density.
The article says you should reserve 17% of your project budget in training. Couldn't good UX help with that?
I wouldn't say they ignore the law, but legislation like FOIA has a lot of discretion to balance competing interests and that's where a judge would make the most different despite all the great articulations of the most brilliant lawyers.
Buy when it's low, sell high.
never taken an antibiotic
I understand recent antibiotic use such as past 12-24 months, but never?