- 0 Posts
- 30 Comments
Nintendo’s one of the few game businesses you can be confident that their E content is okay for children. Many other businesses are using in game advertising, inappropriate content and predatory gambling in game purchases.
So it’s of great value to Nintendo to control their content and IP. Because the impression of children and parents are important to them.
Because children are exposed and familiar with Nintendo IP other people can (deliberately or not) use it to influence them. These children are unlikely to understand this is parody or see the irony in it.
They weren’t people or organisations they could sue.
If Sony said the new Nintendo system playstation, Nintendo would lose trademark rights over this. Because a large business like valve is involved they can sue and are compelled to sue to retain their trademark.
The emulator that recently got taken down was because an organisation was developing and distributing it. Individuals that copy and share the source code themselves won’t get any threats from Nintendo because they don’t need to find and sue them. Nintendo had to sue these other businesses, to retain their trademark.
There is legitimate use cases for a zero hour contract. The vast majority don’t fit it.
If the zero hour contract minimum wage was £50 per hour, then it would be appropriate. This would still allow it to be useful to hire consultant, semi- retired experts and contractors and use PAYE, no additional companies, accountants etc. Very efficient and would only apply to employees with some power in the relationship with the business.
However, it’s used to exploit minimum or low wage staff. The company takes all the flexibility it offers and uses it to bully the employee into accepting the hours the business wants. They do this by treating to cut hours if the employee doesn’t agree. This makes it difficult to have multiple jobs to make up the hours.
Cheaper upfront costs. Engines alone are very expensive and require a lot of maintenance. This would increase the capacity for any freight carrier very cheaply.
It would be particularly advantageous for short term increases in freight. People buying gifts at Christmas, natural disasters, medical events like COVID etc.
The alternative would be a second aircraft, that would also need more fuel than a single aircraft.
I imagine a ground based crew would be available to intervene and fly it remotely. With an option for the powered aircraft crew to fly it remotely through a data link in the cable.
Proper sensory redundancy, appropriate control systems and designing for inherent stability should make this very safe.
The problem with the recent Boeing aircraft is modifying the airframe to take larger quieter engineers caused it to be inherently unstable. This type of aircraft should be designed to be inherently stable. However, redesign is expensive so they avoided that. Instead they added a control system to stabilise the aircraft (perfectly acceptable). The problem is they didn’t add redundancy to the sensors the control system relied on, faulty data caused the aircraft to crash. They also skipped training the pilots on how to override this new control system.
All completely avoidable if everything was done right. They got away with not doing everything right because they successfully corrupted the FDA. Other equivalent bodies assumed the FDA wasn’t corrupt and accepted their qualification of the aircraft.
Remove the corruption and penny punching this concept is completely safe. With corruption all aircrafts are liable to be dangerous.
This is Google’s end game messaging app. They want to replace text messaging and Google hangouts/allo/chat… were never going to cut it.
Its a chat app that doesn’t look like one. It looks like the default sms app, you don’t need anyone to download or make an account for it. There biggest hurdle was getting iOS users. They’ve now pressed apple into supporting it as well. They even have Apple state Google will help with their installation. We know Google pay apple billions every year to keep Google search the default on iOS, it even binds Apple to publicly and in court support the arrangements. I wouldn’t be surprised if Google has paid billions just for RCS on iPhone. It will keep their marketing monopoly in place for a long time.
A judge may not see it that way. They may perceive it as Google failing to provide adequate protections to their users.
If user installed the app created by Google and did not share any login credentials. It’s easy to claim Google is liable.
The equivalent would be a bank leaving the back door to their vault open. An intruder going in and removing your funds. Despite following all the banks instructions, the bank has not replaced the funds.
The banks is responsible for people gaining unauthorised access to your account. Especially when you don’t share your login credentials with anyone (even unknowingly). If they can’t protect against root access attacks then, they shouldn’t permit use of their app on those devices.
Apps have convenience features, especially related to easy sign in. Their website logins don’t have these features. They require the user to enter passwords, challenge codes, card reader etc. If someone gets access to a password manager, the user is at fault. The bank likely stated you shouldn’t write down or record your password.
It will be similar to a big pulley.
The weight will pull the turbine, the turbine will require a torque to generate current. This torque will act as an upwards force against gravity. This force will slow the fall of the weight significantly. The turbine ‘consuming’ the torque allows the weight to fall.
The higher the power output the faster it will fall. This will be adjustable. No power out = stationery. A small amount of power out, the descent speed will be tiny. A faster fall a higher power output.
This won’t be designed to fall at full speed. It’ll be designed for a long slow descent. The theoretical power will likely be much higher. It will be limited by the turbine and wiring capacity that’s rated at 2MW.
If your calculations are correct it will be able to generate $1.50 a second. It will also consume power that is below market price/free/paid to consume when it ‘charges’. It also provides the utility of stabilising the electrical grid against renewables. Increasing the capability of the grid to support more cheap renewable energy, without the lead time of nuclear or the pollution of biofuel.
They get the play store account that published the apps, likely also some support from the original developer for a while.
The original play store account has all the downloads and reputation associated with the project. It also has the revenue from adds and new purchases. The developer can modify the apps and send these out as updates. This could include things like more ads and tracking to generate additional revenue.
They only need one big win. If they manage that, the rest would be much easier. As arguments will have been made and ruled. They can refer to the case against Google as precedent, making the subsequent court cases short, cheaper and/or not be necessary. If Google loses apple, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo will all examine changing policy or settling any disagreements earlier.
They did. RCS.
It technically isn’t proprietary. But many implementations are reliant on Google’s Jibe system. So even if you’ve avoided Google completely. If you use RCS there is a strong chance all your messages are going through Google.
RCS relies on the carrier to implement. With many carriers using Jibe, even if your doesn’t the people you message likely are. So you can’t get away from Google.
At least with iMessage, WhatsApp, Telegram and Signal (plus Allo, Hangouts GChat, meet, GmailTalk etc). You know who controls the messaging service. You can then made a decision to engage with that messaging service.
With RCS this isn’t clear. You may think your using your carrier or the person’s your communicating with carrier. Or you may be using Google’s Jibe. Or some other implementation.
It wasn’t the big, it was Microsoft. They forced the transition and refused to solve the issue you faced.