Regardless of the term, for most users, there's no meaningful difference between a user using a backup app and a user putting photos into some cloud photo app, because that's all they have on their devices other than passwords anyway. So giving a backup slightly more global access is mostly a no-op. Yes, in theory, it has a lot more access, but in practice, probably not meaningfully so.

Not true. The users wouldn't be suing for their money back, so damages for a breach of contract need not be limited to the amount paid. Reasonable damages could be the cost of obtaining the service from someone else, because that is what the users lose as a result of the company's breach of contract, which means that amount is the net harm, not the original dollar amount.

Of course it's not fact. It's belief. That which can be proven does not require belief. It merely is.

If you want to add new features to an optimized program you have to rewrite

That creates an implication in the minds of users that those third-party backup solutions are insecure, or at least less secure than Google's, which may not be true — particularly if the user is backing up to a local file server behind a firewall.

Banning the APIs is the wrong thing to do, and scaring users into not using the apps is also the wrong thing to do. Setting compliance standards for what a company has to do to maintain that level of expanded access is the right thing to do.

IMO, a better approach would be requiring a background check for the company that provides these app to ensure that they are legitimate. And if the company that makes the app is also providing the server infrastructure that stores user data (as opposed to just backing it up to a user-owned server), they should require proof of adequate insurance coverage for damages arising out of breaches and proof of annual security audits by trusted auditors to make sure that user data is secure.

The plane grift is actually a bit worse. DoD will have to trick out the plane for security. That means stripping it down and rebuilding it more or less to make sure those nice Qataris haven't infested it with bugs, or maybe Vlad the Impaler will help them. And rebuilding will require the latest in comms gear because this is the airborne command center for the president.....well, in this case, alleged president.

Then el Bunko plans to run off with the plane to Florida. That doesn't stop him from describing it now as gift to DoD.

By the way, his take starting from 20 Jan. 2025 is $2.8 Billion. I guess he isn't tired of winning just yet. el Bunko thinks he's going to take it with him. The scene, el Bunko goes titsup and reaches the Pearly Gates:

St. Pete: Who the hell are you?

la Presidenta: But you know me!! I'm the Baby Christian, or whatever the gormless Christian preacher called me. Surely he told you I was coming.

St. Pete: Hang on a minute.

St. Pete pulls out iPhone and dials God.

God: God here, what can I do you for?

St. Pete: Guy here says he's the Baby Christian. Know'im?

God: Errrr....no, can't say as I do. Give Beelzebub a ringy-dingy, maybe he does.

St. Pete dials Beelzebub.

Beelzebub....(I want some hot stuff baby this evening, hot stuff baby tonight...). Beelzebub here, waddya want?

St. Pete: Hey Beelz, how are they hanging?

Beelz: Like two school girls excited about the prom, I've taught them how to skip rope. Wanna see?

St. Pete: I gotta see this, but maybe later. Say, we got a guy calling himself the Baby Christian, know'im?

Beelz: Oh him, I couldn't figure out where we left him. How'd he get up there?

St. Pete: The usual way.

Beelz: Well, keep him. We don't want his sort down here.

St. Pete: You do know you are running Hell, right?

Beelz: No, damnit, we don't want him, he gives the nuns the collywobbles. They think he'll introduce them to Jeffrey Epstein.

St. Pete: He cannot stay here, we gotta send him somewhere.

Beelz: Errrmmmm.....purgatory?

St. Pete: Genius!! Okay Baby, follow Jesus, he'll take you to your final destination.

Jesus: Follow me, and lose the bags.

la Presidenta: But, but, but, I need all this, it is my security blankie.

Jesus: Okay, take them with you. You'll enter Heaven when you pass your test.

la Presienta: Hot damn! Let's go!!

Jesus leads him off, deposits him, and comes back.

St. Pete: What's his test?

Jesus: He has to give all the loot he brought with him to the poor.

St. Pete: Bwahshahahaha.....You are a cruel man, Jesus. Well, I guess we won't be seeing him for awhile.

Jesus: Ya, I've made a reservation for him in the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.* 5 bucks says he's late.

St. Pete: I'm not betting you. You rooked me on Billy Graham. Has he found a way to love his fellow man yet?

Jesus: Not exactly. He's still working on L of LGBTQ.

*Thanks Douglas Adams

Not quite... from what we've seen so far, the "negotiated" outcome is objectively worse for the US -- but Trump ends up personally wealthier. And it's the personal benefit to Trump that is really what he's after. Partly self-enrichment, mostly the feeling that he can make the world grovel.

They all support it - the reason we developed language is to communicate our thoughts to each other. It may be imperfect but the great advantage is that we can choose which thoughts to communicate and which not.

Model M, or go home!

Enjoy

(TL/DR: They're *generalizers*. They learn to *generalize* problems.)

Yes, because no kid has ever set a math book on fire. Especially not in fifth grade, round about the middle of March.

What?

Up to a point. But there are situations where you can pierce the corporate veil and hold the shareholders and board responsible for certain actions. Because a transfer of assets between two companies headed by the same person is not an arms-length deal, I would rank that as one of the riskier things you can do. This is doubly true when it results in bankruptcy of one of the entities.

In California in particular, such an action would have a decent chance of failing the alter ego test, because the corporations would be effectively acting as the alter ego of the owner because of the lack of independent control and arms-length dealing. That makes it a form of corporate fraud, and the corporate veil can absolutely be pierced at that point.

It's not open-and-shut, but if that's what happened, then IMO, the creditors (in this case, the people with lifetime service contracts) would have a good chance of winning a court case against the new company and its directors/shareholders.

No. AI tools are not collagers. That is not how they work.

Well said. Science is about the provable; religion, the unprovable. Where they conflict, it is usually because something unprovable unexpectedly became provable. :-)

Yes, they do "learn to think". (albeit in rather alien manners sometimes)