Wonder if you could have those buttons and not give the user anything at the end, since you never said they were buying anything, only giving you money.
This is the law in some places. Companies solved the problem by not using any buying verbs at all. The button you click to not-buy the app says "$3.99" or "Add to cart". When you go to the cart the next step is "Pay now" or "Continue to checkout".
Xiaomi openly violates GPL too. If you email them for source code they won't provide it and if you press it they will just say haha sue us, or ghost you.
So you filled out a form with your personal data and were about to press the submit button to send it to them, but you don't consent to them knowing that data about you?
It seems the checkbox had its intended effect of serving as a double-check gate about whether you really want them to know that information.
Business requires sacrifice. I'd get a separate business phone for your business's Instagram and your business's Facebook and so on. You have to have Instagram the same way you have to have an accountant - hold your nose and do it anyway - refusing either one will just ensure your failure.
Restaurants have thin enough margins already. They aren't turning away a customer for not bringing a phone. There's one tiny burger place just around the corner from me that's delivery/pickup only, not even a QR code, but they have a sign outside saying 10€ combos and they're 15€ on the website... I just asked them. They have very good halloumi burgers and perfectly cooked fries. They were happy to accept my cash, too.
There's a silver lining - if the model is trained to defend the Chinese government, that means it has that direction in its semantic vectors and by subtracting that direction always, it can be made to attack the Chinese government
Because the LLM is trained to predict based on what other people said. When people talk about getting rid of this meddlesome priest they don't mean take him on an all expenses paid vacation.
You're relying on testimony from a known liar, anyway.
They can only turn the tap off because those projects operated in ways that required them to leave it on.
Biggest mistake most librefication projects make is to do their project out in the open where they can easily be subject to legal pressure, then fall into complete disarray the moment that pressure appears. They can't move underground once pressure starts, because everyone already knows who they are.
What incentivises the domain holder to do that? Under the UDRP, parking is only not allowed if it's obviously done to screw with someone's trademark, has no other purpose, and their trademark came first.
Just read the contract from the other side! If focusing on idealistic software abstractions instead of the problem is bad, the implication is that focusing on the problem is good. If treating a software abstraction as the underlying reality is bad, the implication is that looking below it to the actual underlying reality is good.
Banner blindness has been studied since a few years after ad banners were invented and advertisers started getting pissy they didn't magically triple their revenue, heh
Fixing this would require whole-system thinking. The corners of a window are nothing special. The corners of a screen are special, and exploiting that requires thinking about the screen, even though as an application developer, your responsibility stops at the window.
Play, rewind and FF icons were referring to the physical movement of tape past the play head, back when you could see the tape. Don't know what pause came from. Maybe there was a pair of felt pads that would press the tape on either side of the head to keep it tensioned while preventing movement?
How did people learn the UX of a book, or a tape deck? When I was a child, sometimes I was fascinated by the fact the tape deck buttons couldn't be pressed in certain combinations, like the record button that forcibly presses play, and the fact rewind and fastforward would latch until you pressed another button. But I didn't know what half of them did.