> not enough space anywhere to have more than one or two panels in the same location
That isn't necessarily a downside though. By having panels on a variety of orientations on your roof, you can spread out the generation through the day and mitigate a bit of the duck curve.
It is true, but my house has some many dormers (a new word for me), chimneys and air vents, that I hardly can get a meaningful set of panels in. Solar tiles would have been great. Alas.
I think the first amendment quite reasonably protects people making donations to political causes. The "speech" protections aren't limited to literal vocalizations, but also applause, writing, displaying signs, etc. And it also protects assembly, and donating to a political organization is a reasonable part of joining or supporting a cause. It does not have to protect corporations making those same donations; congress could remove donations from the list of powers granted to a corporation, and there's an effort in some states to do just that (it'll be on the ballot this fall in Montana).
As for the second point, congress has that power, but not an obligation to do so. Congress could pass a law aimed at ensuring access to clean water, but not every law congress could pass has been passed. If congress passed such a law, a plain reading of that sentence would support the law being constitutional.
Not from US and not a lawyer, but for me it makes sense for 'speech' to include writing, signs, etc...
But not money. I think it should only include what every person has same of as every other person. We all can communicate, write, display signs,....
But not everyone can donate millions/billions
Take heart in the fact that spending more money does not guarantee a win. The Harris campaign spent over a billion dollars in 2024 and she lost badly. She spent more than 2.5× as much as Trump.
Have you heard of Amazon Sidewalk (https://sidewalk.amazon/)? All those Rings and Alexas in your neighborhood are able to serve as network proxies for random IoT devices.
LG very likely has your neighbor's WiFi password, so even if you don't connect it to your own network, they could theoretically just try and connect to any known network nearby. No 5g modem needed.
Idk if they do that, but it doesn't seem complicated to implement, and it doesn't seem to fall outside of the company's ethical boundaries.
I think enough customers freely connect their devices to the internet that they don't need to invest in the engineering required to include those kinds of things. I agree they won't have ethical qualms about it. It would also be pretty easy to spot; I feel confident saying they'd be too greedy to be sufficiently sneaky to keep it hidden.
For now, it remains easy and sufficient to not give them your wifi credentials.
Why do you assume it would be "free" just because you aren't paying seperately for it? They also could throttle the speed to be unusable for average surfing but still work just fine for telemetry of a few MB a day.
Smarter people than me are usually pretty good at guessing what PCB components do just by looking at the shape of them. I guess that's not proof but it's enough for me.
What technicians? When my TV was delivered they pretty much just unboxed it and set it on the floor, not even being willing to help mount it, let alone plugging it in.
It makes me feel uninformed about the world, but in a good way. It leaves me mildly awestruck when I learn about some new invisible corner of our society that has so much more depth than I realized. I appreciate elevators more (both from a safety perspective and as a convenience) knowing there are people who care so much about them.
They both communicate the same thing because they both start with “buy.” They communicate Ownership and collapse to the same thing to a normal consumer: implied ownership of the game. Insisting that the ownership is of the license and it says it on the button doesn’t really help, because no reasonable person thinks that a “purchased” license can be revoked for any reason or no reason at all. Why doesn’t anybody think that? Because “owning” a license implies you actually control it. But a license you can’t control at all means you own NOTHING! Not even a license. So “buy license" miscommunicates in the same way as “buy.”
Then maybe is should be forced to say: “Buy revocable license” and require the user to answer randomized multiple choice questions regarding the terms of the license that act in opposition to the purchaser. Collect metrics on wrong answers and if greater than say, 15% of people can’t determine what they are actually handing over money for, fine and require additional clarity.
Or, just flip the tables and say the historical meaning of buy implies transfer of ownership in exchange for some trade. Since the seller no longer owns the items that was sold in the transaction, they have no additional rights that are covered by other areas of the law (such as copyright). First sale applies and if the seller doesn’t provide a mechanism to facilitate that sale, the buyer is free to exercise that right in whatever way they see fit.
Licenses are commonly understood to have variable duration, as specified by the license.
I get that people want to be able to purchase games forever, but this linguistic argument seems tortured concern trolling. maybe Im wrong, but are there even people confused by what they are getting when they pay for a modern online game? It seems like the bigger issues is people know, but dont like those terms.
There is some string of terms that accurately describes the state of current game sales. Even if it is used, most of the people upset by the issue will not be happy.
I'd be very surprised if the average buyer of Call of Shooty was aware that their game could be taken away from them (for reasons (or lack thereof) other than maybe getting their account banned for cheating).
I'd also be fairly surprised if that average buyer cared all that much. For many the life cycle of any random game is short enough that it doesn't matter whether or not it gets revoked, just so long as that's far enough into the future (and Sony probably knows that). So long as the average buyer doesn't have to think about it, since any revocation is so far into the future as to probably not matter, the average buyer won't care.
There's some media attention from the people who do care and want Sony et al. to do better, but they alone don't have the power to fight back against Sony, since even though the rest of the market might even agree that the current situation is bad, it's very difficult to mobilise people into actually doing anything (and what are you even supposed to to beyond 'voting with your wallet'?).
I think the average buyer of a online multiplayer game is loosely aware that the company could stop hosting it. Probably less aware that their single player content could disappear.
I personally think it is hard to mobilize people because the overwhelming majority simply dont care. If they did, yes, they could vote with their wallets. Nobody will die without Call of Shooty 10.
We are in this weird twilight zone where some people say they dont like products, but keep buying them.
Whether or not people understand it (I’m guess most don’t), we’ve lost something and been handed an inferior alternative with significant disadvantages. I have CDs from the 80s that still work. Plenty of games on disc and cart that still work.
Is not having to get up to change a disc worth giving up libraries, resale, lending, and not having stuff taken away at the whim of the publisher?
temporary implies it is temporal -- there is a time limit.
revokable means that it's fine until the evil megacorp says it isn't.
to steal from an earlier thread -- my hunting license is temporary: I know it is only good for this year. No ambiguity there, no surprises, and everyone agreed on this upfront.
Using an LLM to parse your application's config is a bit like using an F1 racecar to drive from your house to the bicycle in your attached garage. Getting config into the application should to be fast, light (lighter than the rest of the application), and deterministic. And if the LLM's output is easy and unambiguous to parse, it's easier to simply use that as the original config file.
I totally get that. The application shouldn't use an LLM to parse the config file, but it would be useful to write one. An LLM could supply a diff to make the changes you want without learning the config-language-du-jour.
What's different about the Awesome Bar from Chrome? IIRC Chrome had the unified search/URL bar before Firefox did, and I don't remember it being very different from Firefox's implementation. If anything, I remember it being easier to add search engines in Chrome (unless it's gotten worse in the past few years since I switched to Firefox).
Am I missing out on cool features of the URL bar in Firefox?
This is what bugs me every time I have to use Chrome. I know why Chrome does it, it has every incentive to put people through search at every opportunity.
There is no way to put results from the history on top.
Not sure if chrome has an equivalent but FF bar allows limiting results, e.g. adding a single % in the bar will search tabs, ^ history, * bookmarks, (+ searchs tagged bookmarks? there's no shiny icon)...
You can start typing words that were in either the title or the URL of some thing you vaguely remember visiting last month, or last year, and the Awesome Bar will reliably surface it for you. I hardly even use bookmarks; I just count on the Awesome Bar finding everything for me. If I had to choose between it and uBlock Origin, I wouldn't even have to think twice. Ads I can deal with, if I have to. I've been outsourcing my memory for the web to the Awesome Bar for decades. It's part of my brain.
I'm sure it varies from person to person, but I find it very frustrating to use Chrome's equivalent of the "Awesome Bar" when I'm forced to (eg work computer); Firefox just seems to do a much better job of surfacing open tabs (yes, I'm a tab hoarder), bookmarks, history, etc while Chrome seems like it'll surface some dubiously relevant options and try to railroad you into search. Even when I know I have a tab open and I know the domain name or a substantial chunk of the title it is legitimately rare for Chrome to offer to switch me to that tab, and often times it will surface one or two tabs that seem utterly unrelated. Bafflingly bad performance from what used to be a search company.
I know Chrome's address bar also does searches, but somehow I find it much worse at actually finding what I want. It's perhaps unfair since I use Firefox much more, but I visit some pages regularly in Chrome and I'm 90% sure suddenly it doesn't find these - or they are just ranked way off.
Firefox also find open tabs (so you can jump to the open tab instead of opening a new tab) and allow you to explicitly search for bookmarks, open-tabs etc. The open tab thing is also nicely integrated with Firefox sync (not sure if Chrome has something similar)
Which isn't a contradiction. What you want, and what they're arguing for, is to not have agency taken away from users. You want the ability to turn off features, and they don't want the law enforcing the removal of access to those features for others.
That isn't necessarily a downside though. By having panels on a variety of orientations on your roof, you can spread out the generation through the day and mitigate a bit of the duck curve.
reply