& effectively if there is no checks on this is there actually a difference? There only difference is that the threat is to an entire cohort rather than an individual.
They did that though. They have doubled down and told the users they were wrong & that this was a needed
Eventually relenting because of the consequences isn't a laudable accomplishment. Also it very much appears as they not really relenting, just trying to recover some PR
I stand corrected. Thank you. I was under the assumption you could use any type of drive from any brand now again. It appears i assumed wrong. Just use any SSD brand, but forced to use Synology branded platter HDDs is not quite acceptable.
Conclusion for those who read the title and read it as an implied negative effect on use.
> Drug treatment for ADHD was associated with beneficial effects in reducing the risks of suicidal behaviours, substance misuse, transport accidents, and criminality but not accidental injuries when considering first event rate. The risk reductions were more pronounced for recurrent events, with reduced rates for all five outcomes. This target trial emulation study using national register data provides evidence that is representative of patients in routine clinical settings.
The study found substantial risk reductions with ADHD medication: 38% for suicidal behaviors, 30% for substance misuse, 28% for criminality, and 20% for transport accidents - with even stronger effects for recurrent events.
Actually AFIAK most of the US has moved to electronic filing, but that has actually made things more expensive. Typically courts hire out the electronic filing part. The hired companies typically collect money from both the state/county and the end user. Larger court systems like LA, NYC, and Cook are big enough to force concessions, or even fund new companies, but others have to buy into one system or another.
It would be great if a bunch of courts could band together to setup a shared open source solution, but courts at the state level are pretty fractious. And the legal system is both pretty slow and pretty reluctant to change.
Maybe; They should have still been able to file amicus curiae but likely they would have to appeal the remedy instead of attempting to become a co-defendant.
The case was Google illegally using it monopoly power. The Remedy was to prevent some of the anti-compitive actions. If the agreement was to split up Google, or for it to sell off chrome it wouldn't make sense for Apple to be a co-defendent.
IANAL but AFAIK amicus curiae is not for "my interests will be impacted in this case because I have a claim that's involved". It's more for things like "hey, we do a lot in this area of law and here's something neither party has thought of that your decision might impact".
I've found its helpful to divide notes into two separate categories: notes & logs. Anything that is not a log is a note. This includes recipes, people, tools, reading list, etc.
Logs are meant to serve as a labnote book. Each entry is saved in a daily journal & with a date and simple description header. What I'm doing, why, how its going, checklist, etc. Basically a dumping ground for everything I could possibly have a use for re-using later. This help eliminates entire categories of notes(e.g. call with mechanic), and give you a chance to leverage smaller notes with backlinks to the individual experiences using it. The effort to keep notes evergreen is very difficult when the content keeps changing.
There is of course the safety & morality of AI in military, the potential issues for hallucinations, environmental concerns, etc. But I'm more worried about the ability to defer accountability for terrible acts to a software bug.
To quote the standard observability conference line "what gets measured gets managed".