They're probably already in talks with one of the big guys to take them over.. They still got until Sunday to get regulatory approval and announce it so that they get liquidity on Monday.
In the end they're not, because if there isn't outright fraud, some other bank will just buy them. If Silicon Valley bank is in trouble, I'm sure one of the bigger ones would want to buy them. Their customer base is worth something and they'd get it for next to nothing. And for JP Morgan or Citi, a run on Silicon Valley bank hardly touches their cash reserves..
To be fair, they were the best example of backwards compatability for decades. They broke some of that with Windows 11 spec requirements, but it's still one of the things Microsoft is quite good at.
There's nothing wrong with companies driving industry standards. That's how it works in other industries as well. As long as they're not there to purely benefit Google or implemented in a way that other browsers cannot replicate, I don't see the problem.
Are they really? As far as I know, really big power projects (like nuclear plants) usually need government funding or guarantees to get built. Renewables get built by pension funds, but they pay off after 7-10 years in most cases.
Even a bike lane with a lot of traffic often seems empty because bikes use up so little space. So even if there are a lot of bikes, the car lanes will look much busier than the bike lane.
I guess in many cases it makes sense. If the IRS messes up your tax return, you should sue the IRS and not the clerk that created it. For many government officials it's important to be protected by their organization.
Police officers just stand out because their actions can have much bigger consequences and they often act as individuals. But I don't think it should mean QI cannot exist, just that there should definitely be a different standard when it comes to life and death (or freedom in case of arrests).
I guess in this case I'd kind of agree? I fully believe police officers should know the law and act within it. But it's certainly not their job to judge if a law might be unconstitutional. That's what courts are for. And if a lower judge thinks a law might be unconstitutional, they also cannot just repeal it but instead send it to a higher court.
So if someone is in breach of a law, police should act.
The case discussed in the article is very different as police officers just believed they acted within the law. That should certainly not be enough.
Exactly, not an index but a large database with raw html of pages. Not trivial with modern SPAs but still doable. Storage and compute cost is probably the biggest cost factor.
Kagi, DDG and Ecosia should get together to build a crawler that provides an index open to all search engines. They could price it at cost (maybe even as a non-profit). It would only provide raw data so each search engine can still add value with ranking etc.
It always confused me that DDG didn't invest more in their crawler. Especially as they are a well known name, establishing a crawler that website owners don't block should be easier for them than for most. But it seems they still only crawl a very small number of sites directly.
Not unlikely the employees booking these ads weren't even aware of the rebranding at that time. Or weren't allowed to tell third parties and so pretended nothing would change.
As a website owner, pretty much all traffic I see from Tor is malicious. I also block it outright now, it decreased bad traffic by a lot. So I can understand the decision of CF here. The problem is not Cloudflare or Tor, it's the people abusing Tor.
In fact you can just use nginx. Cloudflare itself used it for a long time (although heavily modified) and nginx will give you most of the features Cloudflare had until 1-2 years ago. You'd still need the network though.
Honestly, I don't think the code I write is so special that no one should ever see it. The whole product might be worth protecting, that's why the codebase isn't public. But the individual files/functions are not special in any way. And that'll be the case for 99%+ of all code.
Still sounds pretty friendly to me. Obviously once you modify the code Github cannot be liable anymore for the lines edited. Otherwise you could push all kinds of infringement on them just because Copilot was active.
Reasonable development practices certainly don't include scanning every line for copyright, but should catch the most obvious cases.
Overall I'm surprised they're willing to bet $500k per client on the legality of Copilot.
As long as you are in airspace and not in space (and those balloons weren't), it's not legal to violate airspace and wiretap signals without permission. So U-Haul wouldn't be much different. And the balloon was very slow as well, at least a truck you can drive and park exactly where you need it.