In my opinion it is unclear what you are referring to because many people have different views on what the term piracy actually means.

That depends on the topic of the treaty.

The EU member countries have delegated their decision making powers on certain limited number of topics to the EU institutions, like The EU Commission, The EU Council or possibly others. One such topic is the trade. As a result, all EU countries share the same trade policy.

For other topics, where there is no such delegation in place, everything needs to be ratified by every member country individually.

I am unsure into which category this particular treaty falls.

Perhaps a better analogy would be:

If you go out into a public space, you have to accept that by doing so you lose a certain portion of your privacy. You cannot expect that other people will agree to your "terms and conditions" before being allowed to talk to you. They will just talk to you if they so like.

I do not understand how such a requirement would be legally enforceable for public endpoints.

But if terms and conditions ARE offered to you, and you bypass acceptance somehow, then you're knowingly accessing the system without being authorized.

I really doubt this would be prosecuted except as part of some much larger misbehavior, but it is there.

So, then what?

Furthermore, on reading the wikipedia page, his conviction was vacated.

> On April 11, 2014, the Third Circuit issued an opinion vacating Auernheimer's conviction, on the basis that the New Jersey venue was improper,[60] since neither Auernheimer, his co-conspirators, nor AT&T's servers were in New Jersey at the time of the data breach.

> While the judges did not address the substantive question on the legality of the site access, they were skeptical of the original conviction, observing that no circumvention of passwords had occurred and that only publicly accessible information was obtained

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev#Imprisonment

Much less active than it used to be when it was run by Hector Martin. The core development is a lot slower. Although the graphics stack, for instance, has reached a very mature state recently.

> Is it ready as a daily driver?

It depends. Only M1 and M2 devices are reasonably well-supported. There is no support for power-efficient sleep, Display Port, Thunderbolt, video decoding or encoding, touch ID. The speakers overheat and turn off momentarily when playing loud for a longer period of time. The audio stack in general had to be built from ground up and it seems to me like there are bits and pieces still missing or configured sub-optimally.

> Is it getting support from Apple?

Not that I am aware of.

> are they (Apple) hostile to it?

Not to my knowledge.

> Are there missing features?

Plenty, as described above. There has been some work done recently on Thunderbolt / Display Port. Quite a few other features are listed as WIP on their feature support page.

> Can I run KDE on it?

Of course. KDE Plasma on Fedora is Asahi Linux's "flagship" desktop environment.

> There is no support for power-efficient sleep

"power-efficient sleep" refers to discharging 1-2% battery over night rather than 10-20%. I.e. there's room for improvement, but the device can still be used without worrying much about battery life regardless (especially given how far a full charge gets you even without sleep).

> Display Port, Thunderbolt

Big item indeed, but it's actively worked on and getting there (as you mentioned).

> video decoding or encoding

Hurts battery performance, but otherwise I never noticed any other effect. YMMV for 4K content.

> touch ID

Annoying indeed, and no one has worked on this AFAIK.

> The speakers overheat and turn off momentarily when playing loud for a longer period of time. The audio stack in general had to be built from ground up and it seems to me like there are bits and pieces still missing or configured sub-optimally.

Sad to hear since I thought the audio heat model was robust enough to handle all supported devices. On my M1 Air I've never seen anything like this, but perhaps devices with more powerful speakers are more prone to it?

My experience is also based on a M1 Macbook Air. I have repeatedly experienced sudden muting of the speakers for a second or two while playing conversations on a high volume.

I only assume it is caused by thermal management of the speakers but I did not actually verify it.

The argument was originally about merging some Rust code into some parts of the Linux kernel if I remember correctly. It did not involve Linus Torvalds directly. Rather, the respective maintainers of those specific parts were unwilling to merge some Rust code, mostly because they did not know Rust well and they did not want to acquire the responsibility to maintain such code.

It should work based on standards, mobile carrier's capabilities and phone's capabilities. If a phone supports capability X, such as VoLTE, then it should just work with all mobile carriers that support that capability. No conditions.

As an imperfect analogy, consider a road, representing a mobile network. This road has some capabilities, such as speed limit. There are cars driving on this road, representing mobile phones. And then consider that a road management company, representing the carrier, would impose different speed limits on different cars, depending on whether they are affiliated with the road management company or not.

Would that be acceptable in a physical world?

If not, we should not accept anything similar in a digital world either.

So why not actually perfect the spec and cut those uncertainties and costs...? idk.

Pre-paid cards that required paying for unlocking the phone firmware, eventually forbidden on EU countries.

Vodafone famously had their own firmware on Nokia N95 in Germany that disabled tethering,....

It starts by regular people being trained to accept that lack of quality and restrictions are normal in digital world.

This have nothing to do with carriers.

So carrier can choose to whitelist/blacklist phones depending on extensions available

That would be, I believe, fine. Those are capabilities-based restrictions.

From my point of view, the issue would be if the same phone worked with the same technology over the same mobile network when connected via a carrier A but the same phone on the same network refused to work with the same technology when connected via a carrier B.

But thats the whole point of carrier profiles ( If I didn't understand wrong. )

Eventually it is the carrier who decides what you can do. ( this can also may be related to deals they made with manufacturers )

I think in this case, it is just missing carrier profile. ( which is like a config file )

A number of cars on the road today can be remotely disabled by a device built-in to the car.

While personally I think this is risky, in the U.S., we also have police, sheriffs, highway patrol, M.P.s and others that have authority to tell other cars to stop or to physically stop them, which is just another way of doing the same thing. They also enforce speed limits.

So, no I don’t think that the ability to drive a vehicle as fast as one would like is a global right, per current laws.

With the state as road management company and public transit as state affiliated then the answer is this exists already.

Your core premise is that if someone can do something for you then they should, but you get to capture all the value from that.

That's how it was with GSM.

Every step of the way towards the resolution of the issue is important. Even ruling out what does not work is important.

Without those incremental advancements, we may never reach the end goal.

But sometimes the lesson to be learned is that what we were is a bad approach, and we need to rethink things. We can't simply run experiments and get results. We also need to study whether our experiments are telling us what we think that they are telling us. Because if we don't know what our experiments are actually telling us, we're going to misunderstand the results.

https://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~ravenben/cargocult.html is worth a read on this. Among other examples, it includes an explanation of what actually has to be done in order for a rat running a maze to actually test the rat's memory. And how it is that we know that this is what has to be done.

The fact that psychologists ignored that experimental procedure marked psychology as a cargo cult science. (Some 40 years later, the replication crisis forced psychologists to at least talk about the issues that Feynman raised...)

The fact that we continue testing animal models of Alzheimer's that we have proven to be a bad model of humans, likewise shows that Alzheimer's research has become a cargo cult science.

Partially. It also, more primarily, shows that medical funders and ethics committees demand very strong evidence in one animal model before they allow you to move a step "up the ladder" towards humans. What you can test on mice, you haven't managed to get approval to test in nonhuman primates. What you can test in nonhuman primates, you might get approval to test in humans. What you can test in humans, might finally prove useful for treating humans.

But the broad assumption is that if something fails in mice, we can know it would have been unethical to try it on humans first.

Such restrictive practices, in my opinion, not only make the website less useful to the user. It also intentionally alienates its users.

I cannot think of a rational reason to do something like that.

Only the tinkerer-type techies. Most people don't understand why right click doesn't work, they don't have a mental model of what is responsible for what and things are often broken in mysterious ways anyway. If users are not alienated by how the web looks without an adblocker (try it once on some mainstream news site or blog or recipe site!), they surely won't be alienated by unselectable text.

The rational reason is to avoid getting their content "stolen", or having the user leave the site to do something else with the saved content.

Rational? From what point of view?

What is "rational" about thinking that the content of a website should not be copied?

> having the user leave the site to do something else with the saved content.

And what is controversial about user leaving a website on their own terms, i.e. when they want?

I know that the basic autopilot is a completely different system than the so-called FSD.

But equipped with that experience from the basic autopilot, it does not surprise me that a large debris on the road was completely missed by the FSD.

Yeah, right. Tell us more.

You mean like it has become a mistake when the story about it broken up and went viral?

But if Hack Club did not complain about it, you would have happily took and kept taking their money?

That kind of a "mistake"?

In all seriousness, why should anyone believe what you are saying?

It seems to me that your story about a "mistake" is just as plausible as this kind of behavior simply being Slack's business strategy. Be ambiguous. Change the terms of the sale after the sale. Try poking. See which tactics works. If someone bites, take advantage of it. If they complain, call it a mistake and do damage control. Collect profits. Rinse and repeat.