General_Effort

Pornhub ist kanadisch. Onlyfans ist britisch.

Ich glaube, Kalifornien ist das Zentrum der US-Porno-Industrie. Also schlimmer als Ausland.

Only if the medication doesn't work. The evidence is that placebos don't work. Mostly, the placebo effect is a statistical illusion.

It is plausible that the body will expend more energy to combat a disease if you are (sub-)consciously convinced that you are cared for and don't need to stress. Stress hormones down-regulate the immune response. Cortisol, used for treatment of autoimmune disorders like asthma and allergies, is a stress hormone.

But a sham treatment could also have the opposite effect. If your subconscious understands that as a signal that you must get back into action, you may end up releasing stress hormones. These psychological effects are just too idiosyncratic and fickle to be used reliably.

Stuff like broken bones or cancer doesn't respond to psychology at all. The body is already doing all it can.

ETA: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7156905/

It's more like colds are incredibly good at responding to the human body. Following the evolution of corona was quite amazing, no?

It's happening all over Europe and the US, but especially Europe. Police were used to being able to eavesdrop on any sort of communication. This becomes ever less possible, while at the same time, you have more and more crimes that are committed solely by communicating and can't be prosecuted or even detected without massive internet surveillance. I think the US commitment to "free speech", freedom of information, has a somewhat protective effect.

Of course, these online-only crimes are 99%+ copyright, but even copyright has gained in favor among netizens. Then you have "deep fakes". Bunch of other stuff like holocaust denial. Going after such stuff is quite popular among lemmings, too. And how else are you going to enforce all that?

Many things are fundamentally feasible. I see 2 things you argue for.

One is changing the caching strategy. I don't think that's wise in terms of load sharing, but certainly feasible on a small scale. In certain circumstances, it may be preferred.

The other thing is using older protocols and standards. The practical reason to do this would be to use existing tooling, libraries, code. I'm not seeing such opportunities. I'm not that familiar with these, but it seems like they would have to be extended anyway. So I don't really see the point.

At a minimum this is adding the number of instances that federate a given content streams to the multiple of storage needed to host the content, even if that storage is ephemeral. Not so big a problem at 100,000 users, but at 100,000,000 users this is a lot of storage cost we are talking about. Unless somehow the user/client doesnt cache the content they pull from an instance locally on their device when they view it?

Worry more about the bandwidth. Your instance would have to serve your content to all these 100M users. The way it is, much of the load goes to the instance where a user is registered. That means that an instance can control hosting costs by closing registrations.

My point was this isn’t an issue when all content is self-hosted, because the author as the host can edit, delete, or migrate all they want and maintain full direct control over the source of that content the client interacts with whenever a pull request comes in. Yes the user Caches the content when they read it, but there is no intermediary copy.

There's the fundamental problem. What you think of as "your" data, other people think of as "their" data. That can't be resolved. What's worse is that controlling "your" data requires controlling other people's computers and devices, as with DRM.

Almost?

War. War never changes.

Tja. Übel. Es läuft ziemlich grundsätzlich falsch.

This is a US patent; not directly relevant to Japanese operations.

Yes, absolutely. And there is money in patent trolling. I just don't see the business case here. Why damage the Nintendo brand with such shenanigans when you could leave the patent trolling to some formally independent company. Maybe I just underestimate how much money can be made by shaking down small devs.

Depends on the jurisdiction. This is a conflict between freedom of speech and the reputation of the brand (which has financial value). Countries with a more recent monarchical past tend to value reputation over free speech, eg Japan but also Europe. The US has been a republic for a quarter millennium. Since MS is a US company, I think they wouldn't even pursue this in the first place.

Generally, service providers are exempt for liability for such things if they follow certain rules of conduct. EG the US DMCA says that you are not liable for copyright infringement, if you comply with takedown notices. I'm not sure how that works for trademarks in the US.

Generally, though, you should expect to be held responsible for any infringing content on your service, once you learn/are notified about it. You will be treated as if you had created the content yourself. That means that you will have to make the argument in court that the use of the trademark was legal. And if you lose, you will pay the damages.

Questions?