Sony wanted mo money. Yo money wasn’t enough for them. So they got a jury to agree that Cox owes them 1 Billion dollars.
Let’s all sing about how much we love Corporate Governance.
Please don’t shut off my internet telecom daddy I’ll drink another Mountain Dew Verification Can!
It would require Apple to accept a dollar less in profit.
Thanks I hate it.
In other news politicians continue to be confused as to why people are angry…
Well shit. Time to rip my own files because their migration stuff is going to be all Microsoft proprietary.
They’re all state actors these days because all the ones that didn’t hook up with a country for protection either got their doors kicked in at 3 in the morning; or they kept to small enough operations to not be a real bother. I guess one of them could have forgotten the 2010’s, but I doubt it. They tend to be smarter than other criminals.
Best case? Some grey hat found a hole in security for Internet connected cameras and is just having fun. Worst case? Training runs by a state actor.
We knew this. We’ve known this since his first term. The only thing that’s changed is his rhetoric.
A forced sale below market value is absolutely punishment. And being banned is 100% punitive.
No. It literally says TikTok in the text of the bill. It also has a super broad description of other covered companies. But then also bans TikTok by name. The law is Public Law 118-50. The stuff in Congress is not the end of a bill. It has to go through reconciliation, where it can change, and then it goes to the desk of the president.
Foreign adversary controlled application.—The term “foreign adversary controlled application” means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by—
(A) any of—
(i) ByteDance, Ltd.;
(ii) TikTok; …
If you care to find it in the statutes at large or USC then have at it. But this is what Biden signed.
Then they should be fired. The Constitution, in plain English, bans the practice of naming a person or group in a law specifically to punish them. That’s the domain of courts. These judges are either illiterate or corrupt.
There’s a history of the US putting people in prison too. It’s still unconstitutional for Congress to pass a law requiring someone to go to prison just because the law they passed named them.
Nothing. The arguments were public. They obliterated the first amendment rights of 170 million Americans because the government said National Security. If the government can use magic words to make your rights disappear, then you don’t have those rights.
What’s your phone number?
It’s any app they can point to as being controlled. It does not matter where it is based. As an example they could allege that one of the owners of Discord has Russian contacts and is therefore controlled by a foreign adversary. (He was born in Kharkiv, Ukraine; where contact between Russians and Ukrainians wasn’t uncommon before the current war.)
Congress can request a briefing but if they want to prevent a fire sale they have to pass an entirely new bill amending the law.
And this article is so transparently an ad for Red Note it’s ridiculous.
This study doesn’t actually have the data to conclude that. It could simply be these relationships are highly correlated with people who are secure enough to know that seeking therapy is healthy.
Oh for fucks sake. No wonder this study is ridiculous. It’s an economist trying to make inferences on mental health. The only actual data he had is a correlation in mental health diagnoses and women earning significantly* more. (Number not defined)
He has no evidence for causation. He does no work to get rid of confounding factors like toxic masculinity’s famous dislike of therapy. He just sees a rise in the pure number of diagnoses and says women earning more is bad for the mental health of both people in a marriage. He doesn’t even bother to check what the diagnoses are, or look for any kind of severity. For all we know the finding here could be that women who earn more and men who are willing to be with them seek counseling earlier than couples where the man makes more.
This is shit science.
I’m willing to bet it’s selection bias. They have more time for therapy and openness to the idea. It’s one of those studies that just looks at the numbers at the top of everything. X couples got divorced, Y people sought counseling, etc.
The most they can say is there’s an increased correlation in seeking mental help.
That’ll happen if you want to do business in China.
ISPs are just transmitting a different kind of data on the same infrastructure backbone as the rest of our telecommunications. Don’t act like it’s some huge difference.
And they are doing their jobs, they’d have to hire exponentially more staffers to go over what was in bills or just vote the way their preferred donor says to vote. Which do you think is more likely there?
Congress has the power to delegate regulations, they used that power, and now a radical judiciary is claiming the plain text of the Constitution doesn’t mean what it clearly means.
Have you seen the polling in the US? He’s trying to gin up a literal drug war for a reason.