tyzoid

I'm not a lawyer, but the legal claim made appears to me to be on shaky ground. In my understanding, there has to be actual damages arising out of an action. "I could have been hacked, so I had to spend time/money on it" isn't actual damages unless they were _actually_ hacked.

You can't easily take text and make it red that way, only edit the existing content.

If you're not the copyright owner, that's a terrible idea. DMCA notifications are submitted under penalty of perjury:

17 USC 512c3(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Cue Charlie Munger's "Just replace EBITDA with 'Bullshit Earnings'" https://youtu.be/7B_6AFG0lUU

It's a chromium derivative.

I've found them to be quite accurate when given enough context data. For ex, feeding it an article into it's context window and asking questions about it. Relying on the LLM's internal trained knowledge state seems to be less reliable.

Why should they? If they've got a workable solution and are living a happy life, there's no reason to treat it as a problem.

True, but it dissuades folks from using directional signals, broadcasting RF energy in more directions and increasing the noise floor for everyone. I feel like there should be some sort of middle point here.

Discord recognizes <t:{{unix_time}}:format>

https://discordtimestamp.com/

It's not strictly a SaaS if the license allows you to host it yourself at no cost.

It's still working for me on the live site

> We're sorry but this website doesn't work properly without JavaScript enabled. Please enable it to continue.

The difference is usually time - your actual password sitting in plaintext in your inbox vs a code that's only valid for 10min-24h. In my opinion, it's marginally more likely for a full point-in-time comprimise of an email account. A credential that has already expired is less useful than one still valid.

Granted, if an attacker can trigger a password reset and also have persistant access to an inbox, there's still an issue there, but it's at least less bad.

Yes, but the closer the documentation is to the code, the easier it is to keep up-to-date. I've found anecdotally that other developers on my team readily update doc-comments when method signatures change, but update out-of-file documentation less readily (such as a markdown readme document).

Structuring the documentation as part-and-parcel of the code helps give the documentation a fighting chance of staying up-to-date over time given without requiring all developers on the team from being religious about updating docs (which I find I need to enforce at the PR stage for those repos with external readme files).

Ever searched for hotels by filtering on price via maps?

What about Veilid?

Are there any hardware accelerated decoders for static images? AVIF and WebP's lossy (vp8) codec might have some support, but I'm be curious to see what percentage of browsers actually have support for accelerated decoding.

Running a webmail client helps protect against a lot of the problems desktop mail clients have, but downloading attachments is still an issue

Original link doesn't work without javascript

If the nas is deployed in a building with a good fire suppression system, a 30-minute rating may be sufficient for it to survive long enough to allow for the system to activate. At that point, it may be sitting drenched for quite a while before people go in to recover it.

Here, though, Youtube (Google) have contractual agreements to license the use of copyrighted media on their platform, and which is uploaded directly from the record labels themselves.

The RIAA is claiming that YouTube does have DRM on their videos, which if the court agrees, may be the end of youtube support in youtube-dl.

But from what I can tell, these unit tests don't even download the video - just pull metadata.

One could argue that such a test is used only out of necessity - music videos by publishers are unlikely to have their title or metadata changed, which makes for a good static test.

It does, but it's only available for those who have a subscription to youtube premium.

As such, I assume the RIAA will try to argue that it doesn't fall into the same bucket that youtube-dl does, since the method of accessing the site is different (scraping the site, vs a sanctioned API)

But it's perfectly legal to screencapture a video platform in full-screen, and previous courts have ruled that recording a stream you otherwise have access to is allowed (the VCR/TiVo lawsuits). The question here is whether youtube-dl is a tool that allows for the bypassing of DRM, as the RIAA is asserting that youtube has DRM on their videos that prevent automated tools from scraping the website.

This is an argument copyright owners tried to argue with VCR and later TiVo, as it lets them skip out on the ads.

The question here isn't whether youtube owns the videos, the question is whether youtube's use of anti-scraping measures constitutes DRM that, by circumventing, violates the DMCA.

youtube-dl scrapes the website, from what I can tell. The API has rate limits that youtube-dl would bypass in a few minutes if it were to use the official API.

That's primarily what's got the RIAA's panties in a twist, is that youtube-dl is 'bypassing' youtube's protection measures to prevent their site from being effectively scraped.