> I know I'm being pedantic, but this is a narrowing of rights.
No, it's not. Explicitly stating which rights you don't grant is not more narrow than implicitly not granting them, it's just clearer. Copyrights and trademark rights are different.
> is not more narrow than implicitly not granting them
Implicitly not granted? You mean, not mentioned at all? Imagine a world in which the modified BSD license exists in a vacuum. This license restricts how a product can be endorsed/promoted as per the clause. Granted, additional restrictions are removed in regard to "PHP" et al.
I don't know what you are talking about. Many licenses don't mention trademark issues at all, that doesn't mean they grant you the right to use the trademark.
"Not mentioned at all" does not mean you can do it. Licenses do not restrict, they permit, from a default of "you may not use my stuff".
The license text could also say "you may not break into my house". That would not make it a "narrowing of rights", and that doesn't mean other licenses implicitly grant you the right to break into the software author's house if you use their software.
I think the point the previous poster is trying to make is that:
> This license restricts how a product can be endorsed/promoted as per the clause.
...is technically not true for licenses, because they do not _restrict_ usage, rather they _permit_ usage. The usage is, by default, always restricted by automatic copyright and authorship laws, so any license (including the GPL) is not a restriction but a permission, since it has _granted_ permissions that were implicitly not there.
So if you change your license in a way where it appears more restrictions have been added, but those restrictions were already implicit because they were not even covered or taken into account in your original license, no new restrictions were added, your "grant" was just made easier to understand.
Do you do regular backups? If your backup system breaks and stop making new backups, what will let you know? What if your RAID is failing, running out of space, remounted read-only after an error?
I have found that "machine is online" is usually not what I need monitoring for, at all. I'll notice if it's down. It's all the mission-critical-but-silently-breakables that I bother to monitor.
That's what I use for cron-type things. Experience has been great. I also run it as a watchdog in my alertmanager container, so I am alerted if the alerts are broken.
updown.io also has a relatively new feature called cron monitoring[0] that allows you to regularly check in to signal success. If there has been no check-in in a configured time it will alert you. For backups you could add a simple curl somewhere into your backup process to do just that.
How does that hold up? If I return the car, the attendant inspects it, and I go home... then later I receive a bill about a scratch that the attendant didn't point out and that I cannot possibly inspect on the car... why would I possibly pay up? How could anyone litigate if I disagree and the car has been rented again?
It would make a lot more sense to scan the car immediately when I return it, point out the damage, and bill me right there. I don't think that is what they do though? Is the scanner in another location?
IMO this is exactly how it works without the Ai already. I have had a pleasure of renting a plentitude of cars all over the world, and would say that in 10-15% cases there will be reason to withhold or try to withdraw money for “various car damages”, “traffic violations”, “empty gas tank”, .. It doesn’t matter if this is pre-war Ukraine, spain, turkey, small company, large corp,.. Now they just have a tool for that.
Psa:
in most places they would try to scam you by removing a small piece of trim (under the rearview mirror, below bumper,..) and on your return claim it as a damage. That’s why you need to take a video and pics while taking the car. This trick saved me probably tens of thousands of dollars by now.
Don't worry, they'll probably make signing up for binding arbitration part of the rental agreement, conveniently having the arbitration decided by someone who sides with the company 99% of the time. It's all good though. They're certainly not scamming you.
Lately it feels like the most reputable and large companies are even running scams. The US feels filled to the brim with incredibly convoluted scams. We're innovating new ways to scam people out of their money every other day.
Man, just sell a product or service and be normal.
It's pretty funny to contrast these practices against things IRBs can require. IRBs require informed consent and often require the entire "contract" be read aloud verbatim (no summarization) to people. This incentivizes making things as short and easy to comprehend has possible.
Furthermore the IRB will decide whether the agreement is compressible to the intended audience.
Whereas in tech the opposite is true. The goal is to get people to agree to something they do not understand. This incentivizes long confusing walls of text and convoluted language so that people just click without reading.
Ultimately the difference is that when push comes to shove tech has not been required to prove people even read (much less understand) what they are signing.
What's weird is not that companies would want to try to be greedy, but how society has socially normalized not even reading important, binding legal contracts with real consequences, and just signing them without much, if any, serious consideration of the ramifications of what we're agreeing to.
What's actually weird is how society normalized binding contracts that are far too long to be reasonably read by the people they are supposed to be binding to.
A well functioning legal system would throw out everything in those contracts on that basis alone.
Because it doesn't actually matter. A single click EULA won't hold up in court if they've actually done wrong. And even without a single click EULA you still weren't gonna win a coin toss lawsuit against a megacorp. So for most people it's a wash.
If you buy a latte at a coffee chain and you use their app to pay, you've probably agreed to a hundred page agreement that they reserve the right to change at any time, and which subjects you to binding arbitration, perhaps even if you decide to hand the barista a $10 note.
Disney recently tried to use the terms and conditions of a Disney+ subscription to get out of a claim arising from their theme parks.
Automation has made it so easy to bury society in legally binding click-through contracts. It's very unclear what innovation or business model the general public would be deprived of if we severely limited click-through agreements, or even wet signature contracts below certain thresholds.
I don't have Apple's app store or the Google Play Store on my phone. When it comes to Dr's offices and the like asking me to download an app, I just tell them I don't have a smartphone and don't want one.
> How could anyone litigate if I disagree and the car has been rented again?
The scans are evidence. Whether the are sufficient evidence to overcome whatever counterevidence you can provide (the civil standard of proof for liability being a preponderance of the evidence, not the beyond a reasonable doubt standard for criminal liability) is a matter that would be decided at trial (or, more likely, arbitration.)
Different people enjoy different things. Personally I don't have much interest in playing but I did enjoy watching Ultimus Rex's gameplay while doing other tasks.
Currently - claude code is pretty slow. I've definitely had it take >15 minutes on the (faster than opus!) sonnet model just thinking and writing code without feedback or running long lasting tools. I expect this to change given that companies like cerebras exist and seem to know how to generate tokens in much less time, but the current state of the art is what it is.
Always - if you're going to pipe the result of some slow process back to them (like building a giant C++ project that takes minutes/hours, or running a huge set of tests...)... it's going to be slow.
For me, the average task takes a coding agent 2-5 minutes to complete. A slightly annoying amount of time as I'm prone to getting distracted while I wait.
This gives me something to do in that time.
My guess is time to complete a task will oscillate - going up as we give agents more complex tasks to work on, and going down with LLM performance improvement.
