The criticism was not the news itself but this particular source compared to other available sources of the same news.
674 karma · joined May 5, 2010
I understand the point, that everything is a bit convoluted and badly explained and may even lead to bad stuff happening. When you disable OneDrive Backup (good feature) and OneDrive deleting all your files locally with a little shortcut to OneDrive in the Cloud with all your files? Yeah... that is bad practice, but an easy fix for MS. Besides that hickup I currently don't undestand what the fuss is about.
How am I supposed to work with user devices (laptop/phone) then if not tags? Because from the Laptop I want the user (me) to be able to use e.g. the SSH ports on my servers, but from the phone I don't want SSH enabled.
I currently assign the tag SSH to the phone/laptop which either enables or disables SSH, now I am unsure because without tags I can only assign the user the tag?
If you want something for your examples, this would be the German-localized version for 2026: https://abetusk.github.io/neatocal/?year=2026&weekday_code=S...
- You asking the painter to create a Mickey Mouse painting: not illegal. You still are asking for a derivative work without permission, but if used privately you're good (this is different per jurisdiction) - The artist creating the painting of a derivative work is acting illegally - they are selling you the picture and hence this is a commercial act and trademark infringement - Displaying the bought Mickey Mouse image publicly is likely infringement, but worse is if you would charge admission to show the picture, that would definitely be illegal - If you were to hide the image in your basement and look at it privately, it would most likely not be illegal (private use - but see first point since this is different per jurisdiction)
Comparing violations doesn't really make sense (the artist creating it vs. you displaying it) - the act of creating the image for money is illegal. If it were the artist creating the image for him/herself - that would be fine.
Now getting back to the LLM and your question which also the court answered (jurisdiction: Germany). The courts opinion is that the AI recreating these lyrics by itself is illegal (think about the artist creating the image for you for money).
Personally I would think the key part and similarity is the payment. You pay for using OpenAI. You pay for it creating those lyrics/texts. In my head I can create a similar reasoning to your Mickey Mouse example. If we'd take open source LLMs and THEY would create perfect lyrics, I think the court would have a much harder case to make. Who would you be suing and for what kind of money? It would all be open source and nobody is paying anyone anything to recreate the lyrics. It would be and is very hard to prove that the LLMs were trained on copyrighted material - in the lyrics example, they may have ingested illegal lyrics-sharing sites, but they may also just have ingested Twitter or Reddit where people talk about the lyrics - how could any LLM know that these contents were illegal or not to be ingested.
Your prompt may be asking something for illegal (i.e. reproducing the lyrics), but the one reproducing the lyrics is the AI company, not you yourself.
In your example you are asking Adobe to draw Mickey Mouse and Adobe happily draws a perfect rendition of Mickey Mouse for you and you have to pay Adobe for that image.
So instead of whitelisting all ports from IP range 100.64.0.0/10 I would just whitelist e.g. UDP port 12345 coming from IP range 100.64.0.0/10 to my public IP? Or just open up UDP 12345 completely?
If only available via Tailscale/tailnet - how is connectivity better since if two devices can connect to each other via Tailscale we are already on the direct connection route instead of a relay / derp connection?!
Don't use the embed link from above, use this one: https://kumu.io/Windscribe/vpn-relationships
I also have my own keybindings, styling etc. - but this is an awesome base to get started.
Also there is the official announcement now: https://blog.ui.com/article/introducing-unifi-os-server
If Google throws in a free AI summary in their search it only helps promoting Gemini in the long run.
Not what the EU intended, since this is supposed to be pro-consumer. Ultimately may lead to less sales since the products maybe be worse without all features.
Let's stick with earbuds or watches, where the argument (e.g. Garmin) is that they can't create functionally equal devices to AirPod / Apple Watch, because not all APIs are open. I understand this point, since yes, Apple has a lot of internal implementation that only Apple can use for their devices. What I don't understand is the EU's standpoint of "just opening it up(!)". Let's say Apple would allow everyone to use all APIs to communicate with their AirPods/Apple Watches. Assume everything is open now - wouldn't that create chaos?
Another vendor could implement everything Apple does and release similar AirPods or Watch with whatever hardware quality - but what happens when Apple changes their internal implementation? Changes the implementation every week, because they optimize for THEIR devices. There is no official ISO standard, Bluetooth standard or whatever standard they are adhering to, they would just open up their implementation. I assume the EU would then say "this is against the spirit of the DMA, do not change your implementation so often", but this would seem like a very long cat and mouse game (it already is a very long process).
Why doesn't the EU define some interoperability requirements that gatekeepers need to adhere to in the EU market? This would make it easier for everyone. I don't get why it always is just the talk about "open it up" - that would be a start in terms of interoperability, no doubt, but that isn't the solution is it?