Yes, but there is no technical justification for Spotify to not have real-time, remote access to a database, even if the database is constantly changing. We have had the technology to do that for 25 years. If Spotify is not properly handling the contracts to legally stream content, then some of the fault lays with them. Spotify is basically claiming their defense is ignorance. They can’t be held liable because they didn’t know what they could and couldn’t stream. How is that a legal justification for breaking the law? And Kobalt’s reasons for not letting Spotify know is also dumb.

Cases like this are frustrating. Spotify should NOT be able to stream any artist they want without paying them. But the judge said that’s OK because the victims waited too long to complain. The judge also said it’s totally OK that Spotify doesn’t have a list of what is legal for them to stream, simply because the list is constantly changing. This isn’t a paper list typed out by some secretary. This is a computer database that can be checked a thousand times a second.

There’s also the fact that who was the actual copyright holder was questionable and changed hands during the whole thing, so nobody knew who they should be contracting with.

The point of the sanctions wasn’t to end Huawei or slow them down in the market. It was to prevent access to specific technologies for the Chinese government. All companies in China are owned by the government, so all data gathered by companies (either from customers or from suppliers) goes directly to the government.

Also, profitability is a weird metric when a company is financially backed by a government.

I hope enough companies realize the inherent danger to their IP this feature brings. Or that the government realizes the inherent danger to CUI data and forces there to be an admin level lock of the feature so normal users can’t just turn it on.

I and many others can’t just switch to Linux because we are required to use company laptops/desktops that are admin locked.

You do know that many millions of people are given laptops/desktops for work that have locks that prevent new OS’s from being installed, right?

This is capitalism 101: whatever makes the most money is what they support. It doesn’t matter who is hurt (or not hurt), or what is right/wrong. As long as they can make more money than they are losing by lawsuits, they will keep doing this. If they can avoid doing anything at all and not get sued while getting paid by customers, that’s even better.

I hope your name is Rumplestiltskin, because it gonna be awhile.

No. The answer is always No.

It’s not a bad faith question, and I’m not older than 60. I am older than 40, though.

Seriously, though. The person said they needed a cell phone IN SCHOOL to get through high school because all of their friends moved away and they didn’t like anyone at school. I get needing to connect with friends who aren’t nearby, because I moved around a lot when I was a kid. I also get not being friends with people at your school, because that happened to me in high school as well. But even in the days before cell phones at all I was able to stay connected to my friends at other schools who lived farther away than I could ride my bike to. And I’ll go ahead and throw out my old man bias and agree that cell phones are amazingly better at helping us stay connected to people far away, but you don’t need to connect to friends during school. You can do that after school and on weekends.

I’ll go ahead and be an old man here and say maybe one of the reasons the person had a hard time connecting to other people at school is because all the people were on their phones with friends the whole time. Nobody is looking for new friends when they are constantly “surrounded” by old friends. That said, before the internet was a thing there were also people with no friends at their school, so I’m not saying everyone would make friends if they just got off their phones.

I meant communicate by phone. The person I was replying to said they needed their cell phone to talk to those friends who moved away, so I was asking if the person couldn’t communicate by cell phone after school and on weekends.

I’m sorry, but there’s a wildly huge difference between bubble gum/collectibles/comic books and internet connected cell phones.

I was terrible at paying attention in class, but I always made it through by hearing just enough to get by… until I was in my final year of college when some of the classes got internet connected desktops at every desk. In normal classes I’d be fine, but in the classes with a computer where I could IM with friends I failed miserably (literally went from straight A’s to C’s and a couple F’s in college classes because of internet connected computers being in front of me all the time). And that was a desktop with only a couple friends I knew who also had IM on at the time. I can’t imagine how poorly I would have done at school if every one of my friends had messaging on every minute of every day, not to mention mobile gaming and social media.

And you couldn’t communicate with those friends after school and on weekends?

I’m not an expert, but reading the posts here the answer seems to be “nothing.” The only people affected by this already know how to prevent it.

We’re talking about cell phones here, not hard drives and laptops. I’m not going to ship my cell phone every time I fly out of the country, if only because it has my plane tickets and travel information that I’ll need when I land. And emails and texts might be “stored” in the cloud, but old emails are also stored on the cell phone and can be read even with wifi/cell data turned off.

This was such an absolute bullshit abuse of power and violation of rights. I’m also honestly surprised this wasn’t lobbied against by corporations who don’t want their corporate devices that contain proprietary information to be accessed by any Joe Dipshit working at an airport.

What does a movie company not producing movies on discs have to do with ending production of rewrite-able discs?

That’s a different type of test for a different type of rocket.

Barely noticed it. The only time most people would use that are on long road trips, which I only take about twice a year (most of my road trips are between 100-200 miles one way, which can be done with filling up at the destination). So if I used L3, it was for 30 minutes while grabbing lunch on the road and getting half the charge “filled.” 99% of my charging was L2 at home or at destinations.

I was pleasantly surprised how good the Bolt was and still liked it after 3 years of leasing it. I was ready to get another one after the lease was over, but the pandemic changed my decision (working from home meant I didn’t really need a nice car and definitely wasn’t driving enough for the price plus-up for EV to make sense, so I got a used beater).

The headline is very misleading.

This is NOT just about build quality of EVs or engine problems or problems inherent with EVs, it includes minor annoyances that aren’t quality problems. Also, this is from reported problems on a SURVEY, not actual problems taken to a dealer to fix. Dodge has the worst rating here while Ram has the best, because Ram owners don’t report problems on surveys and not because Ram has better quality (though it likely does as well).

And most of the issues are with tech that is included in higher end cars (rear collision avoidance, rear seat safety belt alarms, lane keeping assist, automatic braking assist, etc), and almost all EVs in the US are higher end cars that are chock full of these up-sells. People are also complaining about entertainment system software and phone pairing, which isn’t different from EV to ICE.

Finally, Tesla is one of the worst on the list while also making up the majority of EVs. So the company that has notoriously bad quality and bad design choices strongly skews the metric, since they ONLY make EVs. If Tesla made an ICE it would be just as bad.