Maybe they'll replace ads on sites that let them and block them on other sites? Who knows

Where did I say "oh well, nothing we can do?" You're literally tying random arguments to my name.

Nobody here made the argument that what is legal is exactly what is fair. Nobody here made the argument that Nintendo being overly litigious is a good thing. The only argument made is that copyright law is flawed because companies abuse it and that lawmakers need to fix it.

I doubt that the Switch 2 needs emulation as it's very likely to be the successor to the Tegra X1

He never said that creating an emulator was illegal. He said that Nintendo is legally in the clear to do what they did. In Yuzu's case, Nintendo sued and both parties settled, and they reached an "agreement" with Ryujinx to take down its emulator.

As far as I'm aware, the Yuzu case isn't settled law as it calls into question whether the use of dumped keys to "bypass" copy protections is legal under the DMCA. This question isn't about emulation, even if it's a step required for emulation to be possible.

Since there are many issues with copyright law right now, corporations have a free pass to bully people in a multitude of ways, and the Yuzu lawsuit and Ryujinx "agreement" are just new ways of doing the same thing. All OP is saying is that lawmakers need to re-create copyright and IP laws to make them more fair and make sense so that content creators and/or homebrew devs and/or fangame creators and/or emulator devs can do their work with a far less shaky legal foundation.

I didn't know that Secret Service was mandatory for former US Presidents.

Lobbying is a good concept corrupted by greed, as are many things in the US.

OpenAI the non-profit owned OpenAI the company since the company was created. The non-profit is simply reducing its stake/share of the company and giving it to investors and/or Altman

Creators get way more money with Premium viewers than ad-based ones, or at least it used to be that way.

"Competitors choosing" is usually considered to be price fixing, which is anti-competitive and/or monopolistic. Amazon et al aren't the only US companies guilty of this or other anti-competitive behaviors, even if they're a notable example.

It's a mix of both. When Amazon came around, stores got less traffic and had to get rid of niche products, and because shelf space was so important, there could only be so many products carried by a store.

LLMs have real uses, even if they're being overhyped right now. Even if they do fail, though, more nuclear power is a great outcome

Because there's absolutely no valuable information that exists on YouTube, right?

Lina Khan actually takes action against companies unlike many of her predecessors.

You mean the TSMC.

As someone with few USBs available, Ventoy takes me 2 minutes to flash, several minutes to copy a set of ISOs, and then any time I need it, it takes 0 minutes to have a working USB with some arbitrary ISO. Sure, it's not up to date, but I don't need it to be if I need to recover an install or use some random tool.

Defcon is a useful resource for networking and learning. It being run by and for good guys doesn't mean bad guys don't find the event useful. The vague risk of "getting caught" is probably worth taking, regardless of whether that risk is tangible, especially if they follow proper security practices.

You (probably) wouldn't see this page unless you were on Windows

I don't think you fully understand right to repair.

Companies (most egregiously Apple, but Samsung, Microsoft, and other tech, farming, and medical companies as well) have been actively introducing barriers to self or third-party repairs for decades. Apple serializes their displays on iPhones, so if you were to swap the screen on an iPhone without Apple's authorization or without specific hardware, your iPhone disables specific features on your new screen, even if it's a genuine Apple part. Apple also has incredibly unfair and invasive contracts with their authorized service providers such that they have to provide a slower return window than Apple's own service centers. Furthermore, Apple et al. don't sell every part needed to fix phones, and even when they do sell parts, they are often sold as packages or bundles that make the parts unnecessarily expensive.

To be clear, it's rare for companies to ban third-party repairs outright. However, the vast majority of device makers artificially limit who can buy spare parts and who can fix their devices via software, by tight supply chain control, lawsuits, or getting governments to seize the few parts that could be obtained. This means that most third-party stores can't compete with manufacturers because they can't get genuine parts without becoming "authorized", and by becoming authorized, they can't provide a quality service.

You're ignoring the fact that it's nearly impossible to implement this right now. Big pharma and numerous politicians want to keep the status quo for as long as possible. By the time we have more affordable medicine, numerous people would have suffered greatly or died because they couldn't access the medicine they need. Having solutions that don't require an entire rework of the healthcare industry is necessary so that we can save as many lives as possible.

2. How so? Wouldn't autonomous cars disincentivize car ownership, meaning fewer cars that can be on the road?