Sounds like snake oil. Their website says you need to sip water through their straw for 3 seconds two/three times, then repeat those 3 sips up to 2 more times so that puts the effectiveness at somewhere around that of pretty much any other free home remedy. The way those instructions are written seems like it’s meant to intentionally obfuscate that fact too, it’s incredibly unnatural to say “do this thing two to three times, up to three times”.
That’s an understatement, PayPal will pretty much always side with the buyer no matter how ridiculous and outlandish their claim. I even had one “dispute” where the scammer changed the dispute reason which caused PayPal to ignore what I’d already submitted and close it in their favour by default as “no response”. PayPal is very much pro-scammer, avoid if possible.
It’s been a few years since I’ve had to deal with clients directly, I don’t think I’ll ever miss it.
Because that would be the same quality. This is the internet, if an image is still recognisable after being shared five times you’re doing something wrong.
This means that the decimal representation of pi ends with the digit 9, followed by an infinite sequence of other digits.
I guess? There is a 9 followed by infinitely many other digits. Not sure I’d call that the end of pi, though.
I feel like someone not releasing anything but squatting IP rights for 13 years is a poor argument for longer copyright terms.
Damn, you must hate cucumber water.
Could be a courgette, that’s a much more common vegetable soup ingredient.
It might not necessarily be that the instances are stricter, it could also simply be that those instances are targeted more often by hate/trolls so interact with those instances more often. Admins are less likely to defederate from an instance they’ve never seen or heard of. I see a lot of obviously LGBT-related names in this list which likely get more hate than average.
The problem with your argument is everyone’s only telling you exactly what your own link also says; the licence only applies if someone needs your permission anyway. If they don’t need permission the licence doesn’t matter. You don’t need to be a lawyer, you only need to be literate.
If the licensor’s permission is not necessary for any reason–for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright–then that use is not regulated by the license.
And all that’s still ignoring the fact you’re putting a higher bar to refute the claim than to make it in the first place which is nonsense; anything which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
It’s ironic because you demand someone be a lawyer to refute an obviously incorrect claim made by a non-lawyer. If you consider me answering the question you asked directly of me “irony” then I suppose I can see how you might consider that comment ironic.
It’s definitely worth noting that you’ve attempted to shift the topic well away from the absurdity of using an open licence to do the opposite of what licences do and instead onto the topic of who is a lawyer and the definition of irony.
Ironic, considering you are undoubtedly not a lawyer and have evidently never even dealt with copyright issues.
CC licences are handy copyleft licences to allow others to use your work with minimal effort. Using them to restrict what others can do is a fundamental misunderstanding of how copyright works. If you want to restrict others’ use of your work copyright already handles that, a licence can only be more permissive than default copyright law. You can sign a contract with another party if you want to further restrict their use of your work, but you’ll generally also have to give them something in return for the contract to be valid (known as “consideration”). If you wish to do so you can include a copyright notice (eg “Copyright © 2024 onlinepersona. All rights reserved.”) but that hasn’t been a requirement for a long time.
Adding a CC link and falsely claiming it’s an anti-AI licence is misinformation and undoubtedly does add confusion.
Likely because it’s blatant misinformation and very spammy. Licences permit additional use, they do not restrict use beyond what copyright already does. I imagine there’d be fewer downvotes if they didn’t incorrectly claim licencing their content was somehow anti-AI. Still spammy and pointless, but at least not misinformation.
Imagine if someone ended every comment with “I DO NOT GRANT PERMISSION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT TO READ THIS COMMENT. ANY USE OF THIS COMMENT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR ANY REASON IS ILLEGAL. THIS COMMENT CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST ANY NON-LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONS IN RELATION TO ANY CRIME.”
A bit silly, no?
If you can’t read a licence plate at 20 metres you can’t safely drive. Being able to read a licence plate at 20 metres does not make you a safe driver. The test still matters.
There’s no discount there, you’re just accepting their marketing bullshit. That sounds to me like the company is double-dipping by shoving ads in your face and making the product objectively worse, then charging even more for a “premium” model where the only difference is they haven’t intentionally downgraded it.
with extras like […] no lockscreen ads
What the fuck? Why is that an extra not just the default? It’s great that this product isn’t riddled with ads, but that’s like saying it’s great a burger is not made of human shit; it’s crazy that anyone would tolerate a shit-burger in the first place.
Maybe ads are normal in the e-reader space for some reason, but that’s just insane to me.
According to Guinness, “he was monitored by cinema employees during each screening”. In other words, Guinness didn’t verify this record. Guinness records are more PR than actual records of human achievement, you’ll find a surprising number of records either weren’t verified by Guinesss or were paid-for records where Guinness came up with an idea unique or specific enough for you or your company to achieve without the bother of actually tracking the record.
This record does seem plausible at least, but you’re right to take Guinness with a grain of salt.
Probably not, I don’t even drink cows milk any more. Not because I’m vegan or anything like that, just purely for practical reasons. Cow milk goes off at the drop of a hat but I always manage to get through all my oat milk or almond milk without it turning.
This may have been true historically but I’m not sure it still holds up. I switched to Linux Mint as my regular OS a while back and the only driver issue I’ve had was that the installer didnt properly install my wifi card’s proprietary driver (which was working during live boot from usb), so I had to tether to my phone to download the driver through the driver manager. It even installed Nvidia drivers just fine.
It might still be an issue for more barebones or heavily customisable systems but I’m fairly certain nobody’s recommending people switch to Arch for their first Linux experience.
In theory, yes. In practice, probably not? I don’t run an instance so I don’t know what resources you need but I suspect a pi isn’t going to be powerful enough. You’d definitely have to hook up some extra storage space at least.
You’d also still be at risk of losing your account if your hardware fails, you’d need a backup solution there too.
It’s possible to factually accurate with heavy bias, but since that would require selective reporting to enforce a single worldview I wouldn’t consider that “highly trustworthy”.
Consider the following hypothetical headlines:
“Teen Killed by Islamic Group During Shooting”
“Terrorist Shooting at Mosque, 20 Dead”
Both are technically factually accurate ways to describe a hypothetical scenario where a teen shoots up a place of worship before being stopped by one of the victims, but they both paint very different pictures. Would you consider both sources “highly trustworthy”?