As a seller, the buyer can claim that the package they received was empty or just had a brick or whatever, and eBay will almost always side with them. I have multiple friends who were been hit by this.
More so, La Liga wants Cloudflare to take it down for the entire world, not just block it from Spanish IPs, regardless of whether the host resides in Spain. Cloudflare has refused to do so.
I think that ended up being a red herring. It just happened to be the case that the ARM test had huge pages disabled while the AMD64 test had them enabled.
Depends on your definition of efficiency. Any ride service will drive more miles thus resulting in more congestion and more energy use than personal vehicles, because in addition to driving from point A1 to B1, they have to drive from B1 to A2. They get closer with density but never match. They will also always be more expensive to operate per mile because you need to cover the cost of the driver (human or machine).
The flip side is drastically fewer parking spaces needed, most of which can be located outside of the city core. And decreased costs due to fewer accidents.
If Waymo's announcements come to reality, that is happening this year. Phoenix entered full service in 2020, then San Francisco and Los Angeles in 2024, and Austin and Georgia in 2025 (in partnership with Uber). But this year they are planning on rolling out in 13 cities! Miami and Orlando are already in full service. Nashville, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio are running invite-only service. Tampa, New Orleans, Minneapolis are in testing. San Diego, Detroit, Las Vegas and D.C. have been announced to launch this year, but haven't started testing yet. And that is on top of eight other cities that they are already testing in, but don't have timelines for offering full service.
That is already a huge jump from two cities a year.
The DC rollout is mired in regulatory red tape and is most likely dead until the mayoral election goes through, and if the new mayor is anti-Waymo unlikely to go through in the near future.
If you are frequently having to use other computers, a heavily customized setup has much more friction either to setup the machine like you want, or remember how to do things without all the customization (if you can't customize or it isn't worth the time).
When I graduated college I used Dvorak and Emacs on Linux. Six months of having to use shared Windows lab computers extensively beat me down to surrender all of those points - my brain just couldn't handle switching, so I conformed my desktop to match. Then later I switched jobs to a group that was all Unix, but of many varieties most of which only had vi, not Emacs. And so I learned vi. Sometimes minimizing friction means going with the flow.
Agreed. The main problem with domain squatting and sniping is scammers either trying to impersonate another organization, or extort trademark owners into paying insane amount of money to obtain a domain which has no legitimate use to the current holder. Neither are happening here. Friendster intentionally let the domain and trademark go, and there isn't any entity that holds a legitimate claim to that name anymore.
I don't think that old business names should be "retired" and forever banned from use. After a certain amount of time the name should be free for someone to use again, and 10 years of non-use seems reasonable to me. The main concern with reuse is confusing consumers into thinking they are dealing with the old friendster, but I think consumers are savvy enough to realize that an old trademark rising from the dead often has nothing to do with the original, regardless of whether the current trademark holders purchased rights from the original, or claimed abandoned ones, as in this case.
His other business dealings aside, I don't have a problem with how he obtained/revived the friendster domain and trademark.
Security patches aren't like bugs or features where you can just roll a new version. Often patches need to be backported to older versions allowing software and libraries to be "upgraded" in place with no other change introduced.
Say you had software that controlled the careful mix of chemicals introduced into a municipal water supply. You just don't move from version 1.4 to 3.2, you fix 1.4 in place.
That would run afoul of the right against self-incrimination in the US[1]. The government can't compel someone to admit they were driving, and can't punish people for refusing. The government has to provide proof they were driving.
Courts have held that people have less rights while driving then they do in other settings (such as walking down the street or as a passenger in a vehicle). For example, the doctrine of implied consent allows the government to compel you to submit to a blood alcohol test without a warrant. I wonder if something similar could be applied here.
I certainly support civil liberties, but they need to be balanced against the government's strong interest in preventing the bloodshed that comes from the reckless operation of vehicles.
I think there are many ways you could address this issue that don't involve circumventing constitutional rights.
Most of these systems take a photo of the car, which you can often use to verify who the driver was. For serious offenses you could chose to investigate who was driving and issue a normal ticket rather than an administrative fine. You can create laws about window tinting levels (where they don't already exist), and if you can't identify the driver because the car is violating those laws you can revoke the registration.
You could also institute a point system for vehicle registrations, where if an offense cannot be assigned to a person, it is assigned to the vehicle, and after points exceeded a certain limit the registration is revoked.
I don't know about NYC in particular, but in many jurisdictions a major reason that red-light cameras are treated like administrative fines rather than civil or criminal offenses is to avoid full due-process rights, making it harder to contest the fine, and saving money by making everything automated. Our safety is more important than that.
Seems like one solution could be that after a certain number of violations the registration is revoked. And it can only be re-registered under special registration that allows use by a single driver.
reply