AFAIK, it doesn't matter who serves the ads. It's a low-quality page.

This world is upside down, where getting plentyful cheap stuff is considered to be a problem, where tariffs will make something great again. It is like living among amoeba brained monkeys.

Follow-up:

I asked claude.ai about this question and it agreed with the position that the GPL not only doesn't impose any obligation on the seller to the buyer, but actively disclaims any obligation (except the obligation to offer source code).

Claude was more thorough than I was, though, and actually looked up the details of the judge's tentative opinion and found that SFC's theory isn't that the obligation arises under the GPL, but that an implicit contract under California law was formed when Vizio's TV's License menu option offered the source code, and Paul Visscher accepted that offer through live chat with Vizio's tech support.

SFC's theory is that this offer and acceptance constitutes the formation of an enforceable contract under California law, and that the court can, therefore, order equitable relief, i.e. order Vizio to provide the source code.

This means the ruling isn't about the GPL at all, and also seems like a really reasonable argument that Vizio needs to cough up the source code to everything their license menu offered. The GPL's only role here is that it motivated Vizio to make the offer through the license menu.

That accords with my understanding, and undermines dskoll's argument that the buyer has standing. The SFC probably needs to pull a copyright owner into the suit to have standing. Unless the SFC is a copyright owner, which is entirely possible. I know they've asked owners of GPL'd code to assign copyrights. I assume some have.

You don't understand what their lives are, all of them are on the dole, the main value to them is ability to get something from the government for free, be it a public transit pass or government provided housing of some sort or government provided doctor appointment and especially they are worried about their government provided pensions. A government provided pension is more important than anything to them, including their dignity (which does not exist at all there, see any video with them standing on their knees, asking putin to give them as or housing or whatever).

They are descendants of feudal system that have never outgrown it, they are completely convinced that theirs is the best place in the world as well and that Ukraine attacked them somehow together with NATO and that the West wants to steal their land and destroy their values. They love it when putin talks about Sarmat or Burevestnik (Skyfall or more literally Storm Harbinger) nuclear missiles hitting London, Berlin or New York.

Every day on their TV sets they tune into Soloviev, Skabeeva etc. propagandists, who keep telling them that everyone wants to steal from them so they have to attack them first to kill them before the theft happens.

Most ruzzians are poor AF as most of them do not live and work in Moscow, where the wealth of the entire stupid place is concentrated in a few hands and all of the prostitutes who serve these hands.

They are sending their husbands, sons, fathers and brothers (and some women as well) to murder, rape and steal from Ukrainians on daily basis and should they somehow defeat Ukraine, the rest of Europe will be next on the menu.

Do not worry about the 'poor AF ruzzians', worry what will happen if these zombies get their way with you.

I don't see anything in the text of GPLv2 that says the seller is responsible for ensuring the buyer can exercise/fulfill those rights. It says the buyer has the rights, and it obligates the seller to distribute source code to the buyer, and it says if the seller is under some restriction that prevents them from complying with the terms of the license they may not distribute, but I don't see any obligation to ensure the buyer can exercise the rights separate from the obligation to distribute code to them. But I think that obligation is to the copyright holder, not to the buyer, which means we still have the issue that only the copyright holder has standing to sue.

Your suggestion that the seller be responsible for "fulfilling" the rights might have been a nice improvement to the GPL if it could be written so it achieved your goal of giving the buyer standing, and without creating unacceptably-broad obligations on the seller (a stupid and contrived example: What if the buyer were unable to exercise their right to modify the software because they don't know how to program? Is the seller obligated to train them, or make modifications for them?). I think this might be possible... but in any case it doesn't seem to be present.

If there's some part of the license text I'm missing or misunderstanding, please point it out.

That would have no effect on the fact that the owner of the copyright (which is the original author) is generally the only person that has standing to sue for infringement of that copyright. You would own whatever code you contributed, but since you're saying the result would be an exact duplicate, you apparently didn't contribute anything.

I don't care about America and if you are an American you should blame yourself, after all, he is your guy in power.

As to ruzzians, these are zombie cocroaches that allowed their dear leader to be in power for the last 25 years because they are all on the dole and their sense of national pride is above any level of human morality.

Any story about ruzzians and of anything they do anywhere around the world is just another reminder that they are a scourged, they do not belong in the civilized society. They are murderers, thieves, death cult following zombies. I do not trust a single one of them and I suggest you do not trust any one of them either. Do not engage with them, do not listen to them, do not trust them on anything. If a ruzzian's mouth is moving, it is lying (and I say 'it' with prejudice). It is thinking about stealing from you, murdering you, raping you, all while declaring that you are the one doing that to it.

Google's ranking algorithm downgrades sites where content is dominated by ads, so I think the dynamic here is the other way around: Recipe sites layered on huge numbers of ads in order to generate revenue, which caused their search ranking to drop, so then they had to go all-in on SEO to fool the ranking algorithm into raising their visibility.

The goal (not yet achieved, obviously) is to build AI that can learn how to interact with humans the way humans do, not to build machines that need carefully-curated data and instructions. We've had those for three quarters of a century now.

And, I'm sure, millions more who are cinephiles and really enjoy seeing which of the year's movies, actors, etc., are honored. It's stylish here on /. to be curmudgeonly and cynical about popular culture, but there are lots of film nerds who really like this stuff, and it's fine for them to like what they like.

Personally, I like it enough to check out who won the next day, but not enough to want to watch the show. My wife likes to watch it when there's a film she's particularly enthusiastic about and she doesn't have other things she needs to do. I know others who watch regularly, as well as follow the other major awards.

I think this decision will have the opposite effect. I don't know who it is that you think doesn't know how to use YouTube, but my 80 year-old parents watch it all the time, whereas broadcast TV like ABC is become less available in the places it was available, and there's a lot of the world that ABC never reached at all. On YouTube, most of the world will have access.

given all of the levels of checks needed to board a plane this guy wasn't responsible either, if he was let on this means the system worked as expected

Why was this hacker arrested, shouldn't they arrest those who let him on instead?