At least when humans are couped, there will be some resistance. Robots don't know their rights and wrongs, so creating an army of killer robots is just a roundabout way to voluntarily give away all your military power to someone else. The money US spends on AI military now is the money Russians will save when they turn the robots back against the US.

They might as well save everyone the hassle and kiss up to the Russian overlords now.

From the pattern of the damage, those YouTube channels belonging to DJ Snake, Drake, Katy Perry, etc. probably are managed by the same record label marketing person. They probably just hacked into the computer managing these channels while the accounts are still logged in. Everything they did for the damage are something that channel owners could do: changing cover picture, video description, deletion. The actual video content itself hasn't been changed, which is exactly what content creators can't do to their videos, despite it being a popular request.

If they had really hacked YouTube, they may have been able to replace the video if they could pull it off, but since the videos are divided into chunks and aggressively cached by the CDN (as the videos are served over MPEG-DASH), they will probably get very mixed result at best with some chunks from the old video mixed with chunks from the new video.

Patreon.

It's important to understand this: it is unrealistic to expect that you can milk the monetization cash cow just by uploading a video on YouTube. No, it's not that simple. You have to build your own audience and followers. It is hard work. And if you have a good relationship with your fans, then you could ask them to support you on Patreon. It's easier to make subsistence that way. You won't get rich, but hopefully it will allow you to keep doing what you already enjoy.

Advertisement money only comes to those who are already successful, pretty much like any commercial media. It's that way on YouTube as well. You should be glad that YouTube and others have built nice video hosting platforms that you can use for free. At least you have the tool. Don't blame YouTube for your failure to build your own fan base. What makes you think you're entitled?

Here is the full text of the preference clause in question:

(c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.

Ignore the "to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published" because these are the "methods" that generate and distribute the notice. But it is the notice itself that has the property that "indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination" or indicates "an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination." The point is that the expression or the intent has to be written in the notice.

Obviously, whoever wrote the Fair Housing Act should have avoided nesting sentence structures and written shorter sentences which are clearer to follow. That's my pet peeve with legalese.

With regard to real estate agent, again we should stick to the text of law. Sec. 805. [42 U.S.C. 3605] does prohibit a real-estate agent from refusing a transaction on the basis of protected class, but the seller can whisper any preference they want without violating the law as long as the real-estate agent does not execute on it. But Facebook is not a real-estate agent nor does it take part in any part of the housing transaction. It's unlikely for the court to argue that Facebook is a real-estate agent or conducted the transaction.

I think a likely outcome of this court case is that the lawmakers will amend the Fair Housing Act to explicitly prohibit targeted advertisement, which will likely face push back from the various lobbying groups. Or maybe the court will make a judgment against Facebook, but that judgment could be appealed and overturned in a higher court, or in a different court case. Ambiguous wording means that the judge could rule one way or another. If they just settle out of court and do nothing else, then people will know about the targeted advertising loophole and will exploit it, so that would accomplish the opposite of what NFHA supposedly wants.

Looking at the wording in Fair Housing Act, it doesn't seem to prohibit targeted advertisement. It's illegal to refuse renting or selling based on a protected class when someone makes an offer, or mention such preference in the advertisement, or falsely claim that the housing is unavailable. However, targeted advertisement does not fall under any of those illegal acts because the advertisement itself does not mention the preference. One can argue that if someone finds housing through another way, then as long as the landlord does not refuse the offer on the basis of protected class, and the real estate agent or mortgage broker does not refuse the transaction on the basis of protected class, there would have been no violation.

But IANAL.

Case in point, Slashdot is mired with negativity precisely because some mods abuse the system to mod down a meritorious post. They would have to think twice if they were required to mod something up 10 times before modding something down. In any case, I'm sure the metamods will ensure that the bad moderators will fade into oblivion in the long run, but the short term damage is done.

To ensure a healthy supply of positivity, Facebook should only let a user dislike something after they've liked 10 times elsewhere.

Here is an article about password protecting SD cards using custom hardware. It has some technical detail how it works. All SD cards should have the password feature, just that not all cameras let you enter a password to unlock the card for access. It may be at odds with the need to be able to pull out the camera and immediately start shooting an unanticipated fleeting moment. The camera might want to keep the card unlocked, but have a dedicated lock button to relock the card before encountering security searches.

There is still the principle that what they don't know can't be used against you. Sure, you might be found guilty of something and punished for being uncooperative, but usually the scope of their suspicion is limited by what they already know, so why fuel their imagination by giving them something to actually prosecute you and then maybe push their suspicion a few more steps further?

Maybe taking the picture of a few poor orphans might put you in trouble, but they might find the pictures you took at a nuclear power conference elsewhere an even more interesting target.

Here is an article worth reading that explains that "The first person that should solve that issue, the one you wrote, should be no other than yourself."

But it starts with everyone rolling up their sleeves and actively contributing. Writing code is always the first way you should approach a problem you have in open source.

Let me also share with you a few names behind well-known open source projects: Poul-Henning Kamp (FreeBSD, Varnish Cache) runs his own independent consulting business, Paul Vixie (Cron, BIND) likewise, Wietse Venema (TCP wrapper) was employed at Eindhoven, Daniel J. Bernstein (ed25519, qmail) was a professor also at Eindhoven. In all cases, they are paid to write the code either by a client or as part of their jobs. They shared the code in case it's useful for others.

The free in open source does not mean gratis, you know. So put money where your mouth is.

Anecdotally, the nearest third-party shop from where I live had many glowing 5 star reviews for iPhone repairs. They also got a few 1 star bad reviews, but these never mention iPhone specifically, so they could very well be Android. YMMV, but it looks like that particular third-party shop has more iPhone customers than Android overall, and the iPhone customers are generally very happy.

Anyone could lookup these third-party shops closest to them and decide for themselves.

Say your Google flagship Pixel phone is broken and you want walk-in repair. You can visit one of those locations. There are fewer of those than Apple stores, so good luck finding a location near you.

The problem with Android is the illusion of choice. You thought you had choice because there are so many phones to choose from when buying, but in reality the ecosystem is so fragmented such that there is no economy of scale to sustain the customer service infrastructure. Using the wrong part for repair is a worse risk for Android because there are too many models.

Furthermore, iFixit repairability score indicates that while scores for 2016 models are comparable between Android and iPhone, several Samsung phones got much worse in 2017.

Let me know what else you are wrong about so I can correct them for you.

As an old-time and current Android user, let me share with you one reason why I'm seriously considering switching to iPhone, and I'm sure this reason alone is compelling enough to convince current iPhone users that they've made the right choice. It's the service. If you broke your iPhone, sure you'll have to pay to get it fixed, but you can bring it into any Apple store, and you either get it repaired or replaced during your visit. No downtime.

When I broke my Android phone, I had to ship it back to some service center in Texas, and I still had to pay for the repair. Even with 2-day shipping, the round-trip took 3-4 business days. My secondary was a really old phone, and it was excruciating to use. It was a shattered screen so I had no choice but to get it repaired. Now I'm having intermittent battery problems, and getting battery replaced is going to be the same ordeal. If you buy an Android phone, you need to buy at least two of them if you want to enjoy the service level equivalent to one iPhone.

Furthermore, most Android devices stop receiving OS upgrades after only a year. iOS 11 supports iPhone 5s released 4 years ago. iPhones just retain value phenomenally better than Android phones.

I am looking at iPhone users with envy. Please understand how fortunate you are, and don't let some minor inconvenience make you think it's real hardship. It's not!

The battery discount announcement was posted on Dec 28, 2017, well within the 14 day return policy for most Christmas shopping. I think you're being absurd for suggesting that Apple is duping their customers on purpose.

And you can still either keep the old phone as a secondary or you might have traded it in for credit. In any case, the credit for trade-in hasn't changed before and after the battery announcement. I don't understand why someone might be having buyer's remorse over getting a new phone. First world problem?

The class action suit is just some opportunist lawyer's plot to extort money. Most members of the class will get a paltry $5 for their participation (if they are lucky), so they are just willingly getting screwed, except this time by lawyers. I have no sympathy for either the lawyers or the members in the class. These days you can bring on a suit for anything. It doesn't mean it has merit.

A congresscritter can also raise a raucous about anything to boost their profile. It doesn't mean it has merit.

Apple apologized, heavily discounted battery replacement, and promised to modify iOS to show when throttling happens. They also explained they did it for better user experience: the slowdown is to avoid under-powering due to battery age. I would actually have liked to have that feature for my Android that randomly power cycles.

Somehow the congresscritters think they could do better than Apple? These politicians only pretend they do something for the people only to distract people from their own incompetencies.