abigail95

Surely the point is competition, growth and a higher quality of life?

Or is it actually a crusade against margin?

You are agreeing with me. Apple would be violating the law by releasing it.

Thus the people that are mad at Apple for saying the EU is trying to stop them releasing this feature don't have much ground to stand on.

I think that's exactly what people would be upset about as it was the impetus for the DMA in the first place.

Phrasing it like that that without mentioning the $40B penalty if Apple releases the feature today feels a bit off to me.

Well I guess that settles it. Losing to LLMs in CTF challenges must be in my head.

Same result and then Microsoft would be paying for arbitration

Yeah it gets radiated into space

Now Uber is profitable what stops a taxi from just competing again, forcing Uber to have to be unprofitable again?

Would you want to live there?

Should HN links be compensated on a percentage of non-click-throughs? There are people who just come for the comments. Would you support this law being universal and not only applied to Meta/news?

the people who do "AML checks" are the ones processing the transaction.

i don't do that every time i want to send money. private individuals don't just "run checks" - it would make commerce untenable and possibly unconstitutional.

say you get a passport, an address, a photo, a signature, a phone call - how do you verify any of this is real?

Even with a user agreement I think they need to gate their service behind that agreement, otherwise the agreement is optional and open ports are open for use.

You still need to form a valid contract - no notice, no assent, no contract.

If there's a gate that's being bypassed then this all changes but it doesn't seem like there is - and it doesn't seem like they can add one without breaking existing printers.

That's copyright circumvention not CFAA authorization circumvention

You must put authorization on your server if you don't want others connecting to it.

While the right of access is not granted by AGPL - it is not reasonable to run a public service with an AGPL client and say you shouldn't be connecting to it.

They are doing a lot of work to create implied consent under CFAA.

If you want to control access you must do something to control access - it must reach a threshold, it cannot just be a public user agent string.

With no authentication it's a "gates down" scenario and it's assumed that if you put your server on the open internet you intend people to connect to it.

With authentication it's "gates up" and then "without authorization" from CFAA kicks in. I think it's unlikely that a user agent string creates a "gates up" situation, especially not if it's from code granted under a permissive license.

use a unique url for each email

saying foreign investment is a bad or invalid growth strategy is wild

are you one of those anti-trade people where the only real ""growth"" doesn't involve foreigners

Adult websites have chargeback rates from single to double digits depending on the product. Airlines/Hotels/Uber/Cruises/Car Rentals do not approach this. You are off by one or two orders of magnitude.

If anyone considers that outcome to be strange - that's how most things are supposed to be regulated. It's doubly specified in the wording of the constitution and 10A.

If one takes the opinion interstate commerce means buying, selling and transporting.

It's also how the current system works. Most drug convictions are based on state law. Federal drug prosecutions are 2% of the total. Every state has its version of controlled substances act.

Nothing much would change at all.

I don't think you are annoyed. You have done this to produce a reproducible linux distribution which your partners sell support for.

I wouldn't find this annoying at all - I would expect to have to do this for hundreds of packages.

Without unpaid volunteers things like Debian do not exist. Don't malign the situation and circumstances of other projects, especially if they are your competitors.

Compete by being better, not by complaining louder.

What is your fair use claim as a defense to a third party using their source code?

It is an affirmative defense, you to be able to argue the merits. If you publish their source code, they are allowed to come after you whether they have previously used fair use or not. It's fact specific and determined case by case.

Anthropic won half of their fair use argument in the billion dollar settlement, but lost the other half.

You can say you're just using their code to train your own models, just like they did, and they will correctly point out that how you obtained the code also matters and you will lose just like they did.

How do you have a payment system that is free? Who pays for the infrastructure?

you can have it build an execution engine that interfaces with any broker with minimal effort.

how do you have it build a "trading strategy"? it's like asking it to draw you the "best picture".

it will ask you so many questions you end up building the thing yourself.

if you do get something, given that you didn't write it and might not understand how to interpret the data its using - how will you know whether it's trading alpha or trading risk?

show pop stats

What's the salary cap for hiring a team to build a frontier model? These kind of rules will make PBCs weaker not stronger.

You've missed the point of my questions. The GP here thinks they're giving away their monopoly status by doing buybacks.

I think there's zero point to having a monopoly if you don't distribute the profits.

If you have some argument that dividends are better than buybacks I don't care.

If you want 100x returns - do you find a $500B company or a $5B one?

All ASML is doing is raising the share price. The investors that don't want a better deal somewhere else don't have to do a thing - they just have to not sell their shares. ASML is not deciding anything or signaling anything about future returns.

The market is the one sending the signal that there are better deals elsewhere. You can go from $5B to $500B. You can't go from $500B to $50T. There is no amount of R&D that will do that. If you picked a $5-6 billion company in 2008, and it was ASML, congratulations you now have >100x returns.

The inflection point isn't a point where buybacks increase, it's the slow/fast ride up to $500 billion.

The investors chasing 100x returns have already left. Whether the company buys its own shares or sits on its own cash, the net equity value is the same. The only signal it gives to investors is that they have more cash than they want to spend.

It's a mechanism to distribute profits to shareholders. Do you invest in companies that don't distribute profits - does this get you some kind of higher return?

Why would I want to be constantly calling into code I have no control over, that may or may not exist, that may or may not be tampered with.

I lose control of the execution state. I have to follow the calling conventions which let my flags get clobbered.

To forego all of the above including link time optimization for the benefit of what exactly?

Imagine developing a C program where every object file produced during compilation was dynamically linked. It's obvious why that is a stupid idea - why does it become less stupid when dealing with a separate library?

Couldn't figure out which product to buy before it came back up, maybe next time.