OsaErisXero

I’m excited for this to start triggering anti-trust legislation

Please no

Specifically that person probably contracts a law firm to handle the bureaucratic aspect, on an ongoing basis and a support team to handle low level issues.

No, normal is what happens in most cases.

They’re still wrong though, at least for an old enough demographic

Sort of. It asks as part of a series of questions on first boot when you sign up for a new account at the same time, but it defaults to yes, so idk if you would count that as opt-out or not.

It’s not sneaky, most would happily tell you it’s a combination of that plus not wasting food for the few people who would normally meander out at the crack of noon

Yeah, but…

*2 hours

This is why I don’t bake bread.

Meanwhile, Star Trek is right on schedule for the Bell Riots and WW3. So we’ve got that going for us. Which is nice.

They pump it full of sucrolose or similar so it tastes super sweet

Can’t imagine how this could be perceived as anything but retaliation for the EU daring to attempt to regulate Apple

If ace combat has taught me anything, it’s that there’s no reason we can’t do both

This is not precisely accurate. These are individually addressible and can be commanded to change what’s displayed based on any arbitrary input, such as detection of a critical mass of apple products in that part of the store, or a device which is signed into a store account on the store app, accurate down to about 3 meters last time I looked at the state of presence analytics tech. So you absolutely could have 20% higher prices follow a person around a store if you wanted to.

Won’t somebody please think of the shareholders

I would imagine a production version of this would have predefined cut lines to pull a chunk out for working on stuff in or under the foundation

Well, so much for that

Nova got bought? Is that what happened to them? :(

None that I’m aware of, but for a copyright to be asserted in the US a human must be associated with it as a consequence of the monkey selfie case. My reading is that this would cover the edge case of an anonymous, unknown poster submitting the work, allowing Cara to act as the default rights holder unless otherwise asserted by a person or user.

Of course, for an extra 10 cents on the dollar.

(it was already included)

No, it doesn’t. It states that the copyrighted works are the property of Cara and/or the artist who created the Works, except where otherwise noted. This specifically would cover cases where someone attempts to claim that a Work they found on Cara isn’t copyrighted because a copyright notice wasn’t explicitly stated, and doesn’t make explicit claims over the ownership of any arbitrary Work. For it to work in the way you’re claiming, the “or” cannot be present as it being there implies the existence of Works on the site which Cara does not have property rights to. Who actually possesses the property rights to any given Work is left, apparently intentionally, ambiguous.