Some website publishers have threatened publishers of ad-blocking software pursuant to the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), or other similar legislation. See "A Copyright Claim Was Reportedly Used to Stop Ad Blocking, But It’s Complicated" by Rhett Jones for details.
It depends. Does the Perplexity agent faithfully relay the personalized messages from sponsors that would have otherwise been presented adjacent to the information on the website?
My vote is on Nile. He also has a Blue channel:
No I don't think so. Sorry. Nile makes some very good videos but I don't think I've seen him do much in the way of explosives or really complicated chemistry. I'm not saying he couldn't, just that that's not what Nile's channel is about.
Tom of Explosions&Fire would probably want to but couldn't do it in his shed or on his budget. It would also take two years.
Chemiolis probably could make it but has far too much sense to try.
PrussianBlue seems just mad enough to have a go, but I think it's best for all concerned that he doesn't. He's on enough watchlists already.
That leaves ChemicalForce; I think he would and could if he put his mind to it. He knows a bit about working with cryogenic stuff and he'd just love to be the first youtuber to have slow-motion footage of it exploding.
No offence to Nile or his fanbase but it seems to me that he tends to make videos about things that he thinks are cool, e.g. foods, government standard stinks, DIY teeth grilles. There's nothing wrong with that but it's not what I look for in a chemistry channel. He also seems to have a huge budget and often introduces a new gadget/toy that cost thousands of dollars as if it were nothing. Again, that's just his style but I find such profligacy off-putting. I prefer watching people like Tom working in a shed, with nothing more than pool chemicals, drain cleaner and food additives doing one distillation after another, washing on the pump again and again and explaining each step of a synthesis along the way.
Nile can make artificial grape flavouring and play around with molten metal. Tom makes quantum dots using olive oil from ALDI.
But nitroglycerine is very unstable and just looking at it funny can make it go off. That's when Nobel (of prize fame) managed to convert it to TNT, which was far more stable. Though it isn't shelf stable - left alone especially in a hot environment and the TNT starts to decompose into nitroglycerine.
I'm not an expert but I'm fairly sure dynamite, of Dynamit Nobel fame, is regular nitroglycerin that has been desensitised by mixing it with diatomaceous earth. The time to worry is when the nitroglycerine starts seeping out of the clay. AFAIK nitroglycerine and TNT are unrelated.
Part of the problem is that there's no way to pay "journalists" as a whole. Because of electronic payment networks' fees per transaction, online newspapers have to sell a monthly subscription, not a single issue they way they would with cash in a vending machine. And a subscription to NYT includes zero articles from WaPo or WSJ. This means readers get sucked into the ideological bubble of the one publication that happens to be part of their subscription plan.
We lost all hope for civilization when an entire generation decided that comedy shows and viral videos were suitable replacements to reading the newspaper or watching broadcast news..
Have you read a newspaper or watched broadcast news lately?
These aren't even marketed as works of art, they're marketed as video games
I concede that I have not viewed incest-themed video games, as sexually explicit works do not appeal to me. However, US law classifies a video game as an audiovisual work, little different from a motion picture. I'm aware of more than one film adaptation of Lolita, a novel by Vladimir Nabokov depicting sexual abuse of a minor. I'm not aware of any statute or regulation that disqualifies a work of authorship from having "artistic value" solely because it is interactive. Could you give me something to cite about categorical exclusion of interactive audiovisual works from having "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" per the Miller test?
Note that in the Miller v California decision, Miller lost. His conviction was upheld.
The conviction was reversed and remanded. From Wikipedia's article "Miller v. California, section "Opinion of the Court":
The result of the ruling was that the Supreme Court overturned Miller's criminal conviction and remanded the case back to the California Superior Court for reconsideration of whether Miller had committed a misdemeanor.[5]
[5] Beverly G. Miller, Miller v. California: A Cold Shower for the First Amendment , 48 St. John's L. Rev. 568 (1974).
From the opinion of the Court, 413 U.S. 15 (1973):
The judgment of the Appellate Department of the Superior Court, Orange County, California, is vacated and the case remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the First Amendment standards established by this opinion.
Could you give me something to cite about Miller's conviction having been upheld on remand?
The case introduced a three-part test, which you must have known to quote only the third part of the test.
I quoted the part of the Miller test on which authors and publishers would most likely rely in a defense. The Miller test is not like the fair use test in the copyright statute (17 USC 107), in which the judge is expected to weigh the factors against one another. A work has to meet all three parts of the Miller test to be obscene.
And "serious literary or artistic" value wouldn't pass the laugh test.
This is where we disagree on how the opinion of the Court ought to be interpreted.
A real site will encrypt all traffic anyway
Including the DNS transaction, the public IP address of the server, and the SNI field of ClientHello?
If you are good, you will be assigned all the work. If you are real good, you will get out of it.
