Nvidia replaces Alphabet as Wall St's third most valuable company
reuters.com
reuters.com
One is that Nvidia are giving companies investment (i.e. money) with a requirement that they spend it on buying GPUs from Nvidia. That doesn't seem totally the same as organic demand.
The second is Nvidia being valued higher than almost all US companies, where their business model is mostly selling things to said companies.
This doesn't make sense to me. Their next earnings statement is about a week away. I think that'll be an interesting evening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
If I have a technology which bypasses my employer's thingamagicy, I can land in prison. If my employer does the reverse, they generally won't.
I block ads, and so I’m not a customer of Reuters. It is fine if they want to send me the content anyway, and I’m still not going to render their ads. But the flip side of the idea: send me whatever you want, I’ll render it however I want, is that they might decide not to send me anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz
The reverse should happen too.
What specifically do you mean by “the reverse?”
If the idea is that this one law has been applied in a dumb way, therefore all laws should always be applied in a dumb way, then… no, that makes no sense.
I gave one example, but there are many others. It's used (alongside DMCA) to lock down all sorts of devices around your home or to give draconian criminal penalties to what should be civil employee-employeer issues.
So long as that's the case, then if I have a technological measure to protect my data and privacy, and you come up with some scheme to circumvent it and fingerprint my browser anyways, I should have a CFAA case against a corporation who tries to break it.
I can go down a few rabbitholes of why being able to modify content is important to individuals with disabilities, or a plethora of other reasons why these things are harmful, but the short story is that you shouldn't be able to break things on my computer.
Here is the text:
(7) with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any—
(B) threat to obtain information from a protected computer without authorization or in excess of authorization or to impair the confidentiality of information obtained from a protected computer without authorization or by exceeding authorized access;
As interpreted in the reverse direction, if:
(a) Youtube is trying to extort me to subscribe or watch ads for financial benefit
(b) To do so, attempts to detect my ad blocker (which very clear goes beyond authorized access)
They've committed a criminal act.