https://www.cotton.senate.gov/news/press-releases/cotton-to-...
No, a CEO should not be able to tell the government to pound sand in this type of situation.
The company he ran for over a decade just plead guilty to illegal chip design sales to China. You may not care, but that the government does is just common sense:
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/cadence-plead-guilty-pay...
You mean that thing (or is that another law?) that forces me to find that "I really don't care in the slightest" button about cookies on every single page?
The whole Mozilla situation is even more of a scam than how the Wikimedia Foundation uses sob stories about paying for Wikipedia to get people to donate money to an entity which spends almost no money on Wikipedia... but, at least it does run Wikipedia! lol :/.
There is another interesting detail from your reference that makes it seem even worse to me: it says the CEO's salary is "paid only by a related for-profit"; at first, I was thinking "ok, at least the Foundation in fact is spending the money it is being donated (though, not on Firefox)"... but then I realized that means the Corporation is, in fact, spending $7m that it could have spent on Firefox.
The glass-half-full take I heard a while back was: at least every dollar they take from the foundation donations for these causes is a dollar that they could have found a way to take from Firefox development instead.
If the press insists on covering this, it should be in terms of competing economic interests bidding on water, not rapacious ecovillains.
The difference being that those opposing view LLMs as an inherently negative technology, and thus it is a waste of resources for something that is actively detrimental to society. Whereas golf courses are just golf, so the negative aspect is merely the resource usage.
Or, in the case of recent Netflix executive missives, everything happening must be literally spoken and explained aloud, moment to moment.
Don Mattrick has a lot to answer for. Microsoft was killing it during the seventh generation and he was able to burn everything down over a period of two days. Xbox never recovered after that.
Don Mattrick's mistakes were near-fatal, but Phil Spencer's done more than his equal share of torpedoing the Xbox division. The blame at this point can rest squarely on his shoulders.
Well, him, and the person who refuses to replace him.
I get why it is a business strategy to not have limits .. but I wonder if providers would get more usage if people had more trusts on costs/predictability.
He looked completely surprised when I asked about runaway billing and why there wasn't any simple options to cap a given resource to prevent those cases.
His response was that they didn't build that because none of their customers wanted anything like that, as far as he was aware.
I would be interested in how German law works to make this so, IANAL but pretty sure USA copy right law does not work that way. Modification for personal use is normally going to be 100% acceptable under USA copyright law. The DMCA Anti-Circumvention is one exception I know to this but it was and is a big deal for being an exception.
Running any software that then does anything with the same memory space (cheating software or, say, antivirus) is another, separate instance of copyright infringement on top of that.