It doesn’t matter if it’s emulated legally or not. They can issue a takedown for showing gameplay captured from an NES hooked up to a CRT if they want.

A fair use defense has to be defended in court, and it’s not just about whether you’re right but also about whether you can afford to fight.

It’s also not certain that a fair use defense would fly. One of the elements for determining whether fair use is market impact, and I suspect that Nintendo’s lawyers would argue that demoing that their games can be emulated - even if the specific demoed games are not being sold - has a negative market impact, since it makes people who might buy a Switch and a Nintendo Online membership to play the official emulated games less likely to do so.

For data exfiltration, you’re right - this doesn’t help.

Apple’s Mail Privacy Protection does this. See https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/pt9ycv/apples_mail_privacy_protection/ for a post from three years ago talking about it.

I don’t know if any other major providers take this approach but Apple / iCloud is definitely one of them.

Cool, all of your images are getting fetched by the server as it receives and processes the emails. You have 100% open rate on all emails to that domain within 3 minutes of send.

What do you know about the user and their behavior? Nothing. The prefetch is not tied to their actions, therefore you cannot learn anything about their actions.

Even with a unique link, if the behavior is that as soon as the email server receives it, it’s prefetched, what does that reveal about the user?

Because your friend would just be doing it out of curiosity, not as part of an investigation.

It doesn’t matter why my friend wants to use my phone. If a friend wants to use my computer, I log out and sign into a guest account that doesn’t have access to my private documents. That’s not an option on my phone. It doesn’t matter if my friend has a legitimate reason to want to look at something on my phone. Maybe they want to see a picture I took last Friday - if they tell me that, I’ll just pull it up and share it with them.

If my phone has something on it that can help the police and the police tell me what they’re looking for, I can check my phone myself and share specifically that information with them.

If my phone doesn’t have that information, I can tell them that, too.

This is the exact same as with my friends. The difference is that the police are much more likely to be antagonistic and much less likely to tell me what they want.

If the police can’t articulate what they’re looking for or if they don’t trust me to tell me what it is, then I DEFINITELY don’t trust them to look at my phone themselves. And heck, that’s true of my friends, too.

If I hand a police officer my phone unlocked, what’s stopping them from hooking it up to GrayKey or Cellebrite or some other similar tool, and dumping all the data from my phone without my knowledge - whether for legitimate or nefarious purposes? What stops them from doing this “out of curiosity?” This isn’t generally a risk with my friends, but it’s always a risk when dealing with the police.

In the US, when there’s suspicion of police wrongdoing, the police investigate themselves (and either conclude that nobody did anything wrong or that only one person did something wrong but everyone else is fine). It’s so bad that it’s a meme (“We’ve investigated ourselves and found no evidence of any wrongdoing.”) But even if you don’t have the police investigating themselves in your country, it’s still the government doing that investigation. And nothing makes the government inherently trustworthy.

As a private citizen of your country who was legitimately concerned that the police are retaining more data than necessary, could I visit the police station and ask them to give me supervised admin access to their computers (as well as the personal computers of anyone who might have had access to my device or to the data extracted from it), as well as full access to the station itself in case there are any unaccounted for computers, so that I can confirm that the police aren’t overstepping? If not, why not? It’s not like the police have anything to hide, right? And the sooner that the police cooperate and that information is shared with me, the sooner I can rest easy knowing I and my fellow citizens have not been victimized by the police.

Hopefully you see how ridiculous it is for me to expect someone to just give me access to all of that information. That’s actually less ridiculous than a police officer asking me to hand them my unlocked phone.

As a private citizen, I have to trust that police and government officials are doing their jobs properly. If they don’t, I can have my privacy invaded or be framed for a crime, with no method for recourse. And without any real accountability. I have to trust a police officer if I hand him my phone, and I’m the only one risking anything. In the opposite scenario, if I overstep while they’re supervising me reviewing their systems, they can hold me accountable immediately.

I’m a cop and I can tell you that, at least in my country, you’d have no reason to not unlock your phone if you haven’t done anything.

I can understand that in some countries cops can be seen as criminals (and are behaving like criminals), but I don’t think a generality should be made.

It sounds like you’re saying that you would assume that someone had done something illegal if they refused to unlock their phone for you. It’s a bit ironic that you then immediately say that people shouldn’t generalize about cops behaving as criminals.

I don’t let my friends go through my phone. Cop or not, why would I let a stranger?

If it’s prefetched, it doesn’t matter that you reveal that it’s been “opened,” as that doesn’t reveal anything about the recipient’s behavior, other than that the email was processed by the email server.

This article literally proves their point. When Amazon doesn’t need to compete (because other sites are indexing off their prices) they raise their prices. When they do need to compete (like in the examples OP mentioned) they keep their prices low.

You can use AI for free on your own hardware.

AI is committing mass theft of copyrighted information and data on a widespread scale, the only way they are going to be able to train their AI models and have been training their AI models are through free information that has been taken from users, people of the world, sold to them by third parties.

By “mass theft of copyrighted information,” what do you mean? Who had the copyrighted information but no longer has it? Do you mean copyright infringement? If so, then you should look up “fair use” and keep reading until you understand why they think it’s applicable to their use case.

And by “data that has been taken from users,” do you mean by users who agreed to terms of service allowing the use or sale of their information/contributions to the site, generally so they could use a site for free?

Do you think that receiving a service has zero value, or that providing that service has zero value? If so, then why did all of those people use those zero value services in exchange for their information?

Not to mention books. I’m not sure if we’ll ever see another Harry Potter level book again, at least in our lifetimes.

Are you talking quality or popularity? Because there are many, many books that are just as good or better than Harry Potter.

Anyone buying a new iPhone still gets a USB C cable. This only applies to Airpods.

This isn’t relevant to people purchasing iPhones, as those come with a cable. This is only relevant to people purchasing the newest Airpods.

This is about Airpods. The phone still includes the cable.

I’m more concerned about them using the word “sapient.” My dog is sentient; it’s not a high bar to clear.

But what about … new users entering the Apple ecosystem?

What ecosystem do they think people are coming from where they didn’t already have a USB C cable or wireless charger?

EDIT: This refers only to the new Airpods, not to iPhones. iPhones still come with a charging cable.

Sure, but if everyone does it then it wouldn’t work (no one would be drawing excess when the solar is at peak)

If everyone did it then electric companies could prioritize investing in batteries and capacitors and further reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.

If everyone did it, then even without extra storage capacity, net metering would still work. You don’t get credits for generating energy, just for sending it to the grid. All they have to do is the same thing they already do - curtailment.

Finally, it’s impossible for everyone to be on net metering because NEM 3.0 doesn’t have net metering and NEM 1.0 and 2.0 are only available if you’re grandfathered in.

If oversupply were really a concern, then you’d think the prices during oversupply would reflect that, dropping to basically nothing. They don’t. If they did, then EVs could be charged for super cheap when solar power was flooding the grid.

that sounds a lot like what they are talking about

What they’re talking about is revoking the law that grandfathered people into NEM 1.0 and 2.0 contracts. Keep in mind, the people who purchased solar under NEM 1.0 and 2.0 did so under the presumption that they would be able to stay on it for at least 20 years (because that was codified in law).000

only getting paid some large percentage of the price for energy sent to the grid

NEM 3.0 reduces the way credits are calculated to, on average, 25% of what they were before, and that are not the same as the retail rate.

https://aurorasolar.com/blog/explaining-and-modeling-californias-net-billing-tariff-nem-3-0/ has some examples. At the same time that electricity from the grid costs $0.44/kWh, solar sent to the grid only returns a $0.05/kWh credit.

5 cents is not a large percentage of 44 cents.

If your neighbor has solar and you charge your EV in the middle of a sunny day when your neighbor is at work, you’re probably using your neighbor’s electricity to do so. That’s gonna cost you $15 and net your neighbor a $1.71 credit.

Under NEM 1.0 and 2.0, if you import from and export to the grid in the same hour, those amounts are netted, even before NBCs come into effect. But under NEM 3.0, you could get billed for importing in the same hour even if you exported far more than you used. If you imported 1 kWh from the grid, you’d need to export 9 kWh to break even.

Again, this doesn’t make sense. Someone is paying $0.44/kWh for the energy you exported, but you’re only getting $0.05 credit for it.

If your solar system has storage, you can strategically export energy to the grid when the compensation is higher. That’s something you can consider when installing your solar system… but that’s not true for the people who are grandfathered into NEM 1.0 and 2.0, who knew they were grandfathered in by law.

And from what I’ve heard, even that doesn’t actually help that much, because the credits don’t apply to the largest part of the bill - they apply to “generation,” not to “delivery.” I haven’t found a reliable source confirming that, but if true it just adds insult to injury - if you pay the added cost to install an intelligent storage system and configure it to return money to the grid when their costs are highest, you get a credit equal to the cost you helped them avoid, but then the credit’s actually only usable on a small portion of your bill. If the calculations are based on avoided cost, you should get those credits even if it means the electric company is paying you.

It doesn’t really seem like net metering is sustainable.

Not sure why you think that.

Say for example someone generates the same amount of electricity they use, in that case they pay $0 for electricity even though the grid has to take the burden of storing the electricity until they use it later in the day.

The grid isn’t storing their energy - it’s sending it to other customers, meaning that non-sustainable, polluting energy sources don’t have to be generated.

The only time that’s not true is when the net load on the grid dips below zero. According to the duck curve graph from the article, it does appear to be very briefly dipping for a very brief time period each day. At that point it could make sense to store the rest, but if the grid doesn’t have storage capacity then any excess is “wasted,” but at that point the grid engages in a process known as “curtailment,” which means it rejects the excess, meaning that nobody gets credit later for energy that isn’t used now.

Also, curtailment is often not because the grid itself is over-supplied, but because specific regions are over-supplied and the grid lacks transmission lines from them to regions where demand is higher.

in that case they pay $0 for electricity

True under NEM 1.0, but NEM 2.0 also includes “non-bypassable charges” - components of pulling from the grid that cannot be offset by what they contribute. Those charges are roughly 5% as far as I can tell, meaning that if they pulled $300 worth of energy from the grid and sent back $300 worth (or more), they’d still owe $15.

Cool, didn’t know that about Ecosia.

Qwant: looks like maybe they used to have a browser that might have been forked from Firefox, but it hasn’t been updated in a while - per the App Store listings, I think they now just have a lightweight search engine frontend.

Brave on iOS appears to have been forked from Firefox on iOS back in 2018-2019, which was news to me. (“Appears to” regards the date; it was definitely forked from Firefox).

the rest of the browser is derived from Firefox

This might be true for some, like Ecosia, but I’m guessing that Brave isn’t pulling changes from Firefox. It seems like they basically used the Firefox codebase as a starting point - and in 5 years of development, a lot can change.

I wasn’t saying that this is generally true for IOS browsers, just that a pretty large part of FOSS ones are

Gotcha, that makes more sense.

One more thing to point out is that your comment reads like they were based on Firefox and that Firefox didn’t use Webkit (but of course Firefox on iOS also uses Webkit).

more like Floorp

Meaning that they’re forks of Chromium on desktop in the same way Floorp is a fork of Firefox on desktop?

They are based off Firefox for IOS which uses WebKit, but they are still based on the browser like Edge which is based on chromium vs Flakon which uses blink but not the rest chromium

I’ve reread this like 5 times and still have no clue what you’re trying to say.

The person you replied to was technically incorrect - other browsers aren’t UIs on top of Safari, but (outside the EU) they’re all limited to the same browser rendering engine Safari uses, Webkit.

This means that other rendering engines - namely Firefox’s Gecko and Chromium’s Blink, as well as niche engines like Ladybird’s - are unavailable there (outside the EU).

They are based off Firefox for IOS

This is not generally true of browsers on iOS, and might not be true of any.

Flakon

I didn’t know what this was at first - apparently this was a typo for “Falkon.”

which uses blink

The browser rendering engine used by Chromium browsers is Blink, which was forked from Webkit over a decade ago, but I’m not aware of any non-Chromium browsers that use it… including Falkon, which appears to leverage QtWebEngine, which itself uses Chromium.

but they are still based on the browser like Edge

By “based on” do you mean “uses the same branding as and is loosely inspired by?” Because I highly doubt that the iOS codebase is based off the desktop codebase for many Chromium or Firefox-based browsers… they may share some code and assets but I doubt they get to share much more than that.