LinkedIn won that case because the data that was being scraped didn't belong to LinkedIn (it belonged to the users who submitted it), so they had no grounds to claim copyright protection over it, and because the scraper otherwise had no contractual relationship with LinkedIn that would preclude them from doing so.

This is not that case.

Definitely for the former reason; since it involves the Bing API, which you do have to agree to a contract with Microsoft for access to and is not available non-authenticated or anonymously -- so normal contract law applies and if the terms of the contract say "you can't use this API to do that" then you can't use that API to do that.

And very possibly for the former reason too; since it's not the content of the indexed pages that being used but the compilation and organization of it; which courts have held is copyrightable even if you don't own the specific pieces of content themselves. Bing doesn't have copyright over the pages indexed, but they very likely could claim copyright over the fact that their search returns those specific results.

I had a discussion here on reddit back in September (about two weeks before Tesla announced their new 1000V plug variant) where I went over specifically what limits their plug to 500V, and concluded it was primarily the airgapped distance between their high voltage pins, not the size of the pins themselves.

If you look at the technical specs that they ended up releasing two weeks later where they introduced their new 1000V-capable variant, you'll notice that the most noticeable change between the 500V variant and the 1000V variant (see pages 16 and 21, specifically), is that they've recessed everything relating to the HV connections back into each side of the connection about 5mm; which adds about 10mm to the airgap, which is more than sufficient to safely extinguish a 1000V arc before it can bridge the pins.

Notably, though, the thickness of the pins themselves is unchanged in the 1000V variant. I'm not going to do the math right now but I wonder if that pin gauge is what holds their new connector design back from being >1000V capable because increasing the airgap alone should buy them plenty of safety headroom (but I'll also admit I'm not intimately familiar with the necessary safety margins they'd be aiming for).

They apparently released a 1000V-capable revision of it back in late November that I wasn't aware of; but the previous connector can indeed only handle 500V.

I don't know that I'd characterize the entire industry except Tesla coalescing around an open, non-patent-encumbered, superior connector as a "defeat" they need to admit and switch away from.

Tesla's connector falls under Tesla's "you can use it if you promise to never sue us ever, for any reason" patent offering which already makes it kryptonite for literally every other company in the world; but it's also a less capable connector, not capable of safely carrying >500V when we're increasingly seeing vehicles capable of accepting higher voltages.

> A TPM chip is a physical piece of hardware.

Not anymore. It's integrated right into the CPU nowadays; and especially since we're talking about "gaming" motherboards, we're also talking about "gaming" CPUs (i.e., not bargain basement stuff), and every gaming CPU sold in at least the past 5-8 years has it.

And if that's too vague for you, then there's a simpler statement: every CPU officially supported by Windows 11 has the requisite TPM built in. (Most BIOSes shipped until very very recently disabled it by default though, so if a hardware compatibility tool tells you that you don't have a TPM despite having a supported CPU, you just need to boot into the BIOS and enable it.)

Of all the practical problems facing a space elevator, dealing with debris is by far the easiest of them.

You don't run one cable from the ground up to orbit; you run several of them parallel to each other, spaced far enough apart from each other that no piece of debris could sever more than a certain amount of them at once. And at regular intervals down the cables, they'd be linked to each other such that if any subset of cables gets severed, the remaining cables would continue to hold the entire structure upright.

How many cables you'd need and how far apart they'd need to be would need to decided upon by dedicated research into the nature of the debris problem -- how much debris, how big it can be, etc. And then you just engineer in redundancy for the unavoidable failures to reduce their impact into being a bothersome maintenance task to repair/replace severed cables rather than a complete catastrophic disaster collapse.

> Oh and the Clocks on your phone are GPS time and their isn't an easy way to change this

Sure there is. Go to settings and turn off automatic time setting. Then you can set the clock on your phone to any date and time you want.

Just because your phone uses GPS for navigation doesn't imply that it uses GPS for any other purposes, including setting the clock. It can, and you probably want it to, but literally nothing says it has to.

And even if you do continue to use GPS to sync your clock, your clock will not be off in 10-15 years because GPS time doesn't use leap seconds, so there's already an offset that gets applied to your clock when syncing time from the GPS signal -- currently this is 18 seconds, so your phone's clock is 18 seconds off from what GPS says it should be. And all this change means is that the offset won't need to continue to be manually changed in the future as leap seconds get abandoned entirely.

Stack ranking was always intended to be used when a company needs to slim down its workforce and wants to make sure it gets rid of the lowest performers; but the business world cargo-culted it into being used for regular performance reviews when lowering headcount wasn't the goal, a task which it is absolutely awful for.

Business is in the middle of waking up and deciding it's worthless as a general evaluation system; but it's still very good at its intended purpose, and that's what Amazon appears to be using it for here.

This is the most garbage article I've ever seen in a while.

Not only does it describe extremely typical malware as "fully undetectable", but the behavior described is about as straightforward and naive (and thus, easily detectable) as possible. There's absolutely nothing unique or clever about the behavior it describes; it sounds like it's describing Baby's First Malware.

If you strip the specific filename out of the article and instead replace it with "named to look like a normal Windows process", then the rest of the article's text accurately describes literally thousands of different pieces of malware: run a script from a Word macro, dump a script file into an out-of-the-way directory, name it so it looks like some normal process, then run it to create a remote shell.