I literally cannot count the number of times I put my Linux computer to sleep and it just doesn't wake up, and I have to hard reset the power to get it to do anything. I would never leave anything unsaved open for an extended period of time on a graphical Linux system.
Happens 90% of the time on my standard Elitebook laptop when I run windows. It just crashes and has the fan going crazy. On Linux it's been fine since day one, some 5 years ago.
But this is a bug, and it's very different from the OS voluntarily rebooting without your consent.
Actually no. Linux pretty closely follows the ACPI standard. The issue is that ACPI implementors specifically work around bugs in Windows, which does not follow the standard well and has its own quirks. Thus, in order to make Linux 'work' with the broken hardware, they'd have to add bugs. Again, we see the issue with Microsoft dominance. A serious OS would implement the standard as written, not demand that others follow its bugginess.
Is so far as you don't have to use the site, that's true, but they are legally enforceable, and you could absolutely be sued for breaking them if you upset eBay enough.
My understanding from hiQ v. LinkedIn is that it depends on whether you have access controls contingent on the terms' acceptance. If you have to make an account and agree to the terms to view content or place bids, it's illegal to violate what you agreed to. If you didn't explicitly agree to anything, you don't bind yourself by viewing the site, so breaking them isn't illegal. However, robots.txt qualifies as an access control and therefore is legally binding, so if an AI company is breaking that, they probably could be sued (see: eBay v. Bidder's Edge), but OpenAI follows robots.txt to my knowledge. Maybe the Internet Archive would be liable.
I haven't followed all the appeals though, and I'm not your lawyer.
In roles where you're trusted with a lot of power over other people, absolutely. You won't get fingerprinted in a restaurant or store, but everyone in a hospital or a school should be.
There is zero practical difference between going to a bookie and betting on X team to win a game and going to a broker and buying an equivalent amount of predictive futures contracts for X team to win the game. Some people can also consistently make money on sports betting apps until their accounts get banned for winning. The difference is purely the legal language used (and the elimination of any risk for the bookies).
With stock markets, at least in theory that money can be used to make a product to sell. They're not sum-zero games. Even if the company were to liquidate, you would be entitled to a share of actual assets after creditors were paid. This might seem foreign to some modern social media investors who YOLO with leverage all their money on meme stocks, but I would not be against that being reined in too.
Also, I really struggle to see anything coming out of prediction markets as valuable, especially not on a scale that would counteract their destructiveness. Like, polls are basically equally accurate, and there is zero benefit to anyone to know that there's a 76% chance that Trump will say the word "historic" during his speech Thursday.
Well, assuming they're paid out truthfully, it does incentivize learning the actual truth. Unless you're saying that the oracles are falling for fake news? Or you're saying people are intentionally buying the wrong option, getting other people to believe it, and then selling before it becomes worthless? That seems harder than just buying the right option unless you already have a ton of influence to burn.
Closer to the second than the first, but traders probably have less agency than the way you're putting it. They benefit from misdirection, but they don't need to be the ones doing the misdirection. Their special skill is recognizing the effect of misdirection (or simply how events unfold) sooner and more accurately than others.
reply