If it is, that's still valid, because copyright exists only for its results. It isn't a natural right, but one created by the government "to promote the useful arts and sciences."
Are you saying that the current generation of Hollywood stars are generally nepo babies? I’m not saying it’s not true, but Tom Holland and Timothee Chalamet are not good examples for that.
There is not enough housing available that is affordable to people whose only income is whatever the minimums the government can provide.
Accordingly they're homeless. There's also not enough temporary shelters for people who are homeless, so the only option is to sleep in a tent outdoors.
Sleeping in a tent outdoors is against the law.
So in effect there is no real alternative for these persons but to break the law.
Supreme Courts in Canada (unsure on the USA) have noted this fact, that people have literally no choice but to break the law, and have accordingly ruled that cities are not legally able to stop people from setting up tents in public land (parks) if there is no other housing options available. (Cities are however able to put time limits on tenting in parks)
I think that's exactly the point the parent comment was making: that, as with driving, an individual who is unable to take the wellbeing of others around them into account can/should have their privilege of individual autonomy restricted.
Obviously there's a difference between defecating on the sidewalk and recklessly injuring someone with a car, so the question becomes how we define harm.
"Telco bootlicking" feels pretty strong for the seemingly reasonable view that a customer doesn't own a phone they haven't paid for.
There are absolutely worthwhile discussions to be had about the ethics of dealing with abusive or greedy corporations, or about whether rent-to-own contracts are predatory.
But just because the community doesn't immediately jump to say "telcos suck so stealing your phone is a moral imperative" doesn't mean commenters are groveling at the feet of T-Mobile.
The kind of unlocking at issue in this case refers to a) unlocking phones that a customer owes a balance for or b) unblocking stolen phones (which are blacklisted by carriers to deter theft).
The last paragraph of the story is a concluding statement by the author on the difficulty of countering CSAM, and it says no such thing.
The announced opt-in feature for iCloud family accounts (Communication Safety for Messages) will scan content that is sent and received by the Messages app, and alert the associated parent or caregiver directly, without informing Apple.
This was the last paragraph before WIRED edited the article to add commentary from RAINN as the last paragraph:
>"Technology that detects CSAM before it is sent from a child’s device can prevent that child from being a victim of sextortion or other sexual abuse, and can help identify children who are currently being exploited,” says Erin Earp, interim vice president of public policy at the anti-sexual violence organization RAINN. “Additionally, because the minor is typically sending newly or recently created images, it is unlikely that such images would be detected by other technology, such as Photo DNA. While the vast majority of online CSAM is created by someone in the victim’s circle of trust, which may not be captured by the type of scanning mentioned, combatting the online sexual abuse and exploitation of children requires technology companies to innovate and create new tools. Scanning for CSAM before the material is sent by a child’s device is one of these such tools and can help limit the scope of the problem.”
Those quotes are a continuation of the statement from "The Company" ie Apple.
Ah, I think you're confused by the way the preceding paragraph ends ("Apple told WIRED that it also plans to continue working with child safety experts [...]").
The paragraph you're quoting ("'Technology that detects...scope of the problem.'") is entirely commentary from Erin Earp at RAINN, and is what was added by WIRED with the edit.
And, sorry to nitpick, but "Countering CSAM is a complicated and nuanced endeavor [...]" has always been the last paragraph (both before and after the edit).
Can you give examples of some of the times Apple has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar? Otherwise it seems like a bit of a false equivalence.
> Are you really suggesting that people should make Cascading Style Sheets do more than styling?
The parent made no such suggestion. You seem to be conflating the purpose of HTML classes with CSS. Here's a note from the "literal entire spec"[0], which other commenters have already pointed out:
> […] authors are encouraged to use values that describe the nature of the content, rather than values that describe the desired presentation of the content.
Furthermore, the parent took great pains not to attack Tailwind, instead pointing out that the two different approaches could easily coexist.
If you'd like to use class names solely as CSS hooks, go right ahead, but citing "correct attributes" is ironic at best.
I'm not Google but when I write a scraper I frequently use class selectors to pick out data. It's a rare occasion when all the information I need from a page is tagged as microdata.
