I mean… I get your sentiment (and admittedly, I’m not really knowledgeable about the situation over there), but if the cartels’ influence is really as pervasive as you say… is there even anything that can be realistically done to address the problem directly? Has any candidate (even minor ones) proposed a plan to deal with them and they got messed with? Or is everyone just too disillusioned to even try?

Genuinely asking, because the way you described it, it sounds even worse than the Mafia situation in the nineties in Italy, and that was really bleak.

I generally hate the principle of subscriptions + ads + paywalling stuff to viewers but not to crawlers, it’s pretty much double-dipping while baiting people for SEO.

On the other hand, I understand that in this day and age keeping a news outlet afloat without “outside influence” requires doing stuff like this. It’s a hard thing to balance but in either case I appreciate the insight from your comment, I admit I didn’t look them up and I figured they were just another money-hungry megacorp-owned outlet.

Unfortunately it seems like the donator specified the usage in this case as well, but the courts are straight up ignoring it.

On July 7, 1999, Bland’s descendants granted 87.97 acres of land to the “Texas Parks and Recreation Foundation, a Texas non-profit corporation, to be held in trust for future use as parkland by Williamson County, Texas,” according to a copy of the deed reviewed by 404 Media.

Not a lawyer either, but the article explicitly says “sold”, so I assume it’s not just leasing

In 2003, the Texas Parks and Recreation Foundation granted the land to another non-profit called the Williamson County Park Foundation. A month later, that non-profit gave the land to the City of Taylor. Five years later, in 2008, the city of Taylor sold the land to the Taylor Economic Development Corporation (TEDC) for $15,000. In 2025, TEDC sold the land to Blueprint, the data center developers, for $10 million.

Archive link to bypass login

…being honest I didn’t really understand what the change entails but thanks anyway, I’m sure someone else with more knowledge in US law will find the answer useful!

As someone who doesn’t speak legalese, are the changes significative? Does everything written in the article still apply?

On most phones/pcs, you have tools to restrict what your kid can or can’t do. I don’t know the specific OS this has happened on, but you can probably limit downloads, timegate specific apps so that they can only play them when you’re around, or maybe even deny camera access to some.

…oh. The article only mentions a cease and desist, I didn’t think they were using DMCA takedowns. So the issue (according to Bambu Labs) is that they’re using “their” code, not that they’re accessing their cloud?

I see. Then wouldn’t suing them over this have worked better than “daring” them to sue for this? Or can they use the AGPL argument to win in court even if the case is related to cloud access?

EDIT: actually, is the case over cloud access? Another commenter said it’s DMCA takedowns, is that what they’re using?

(Premise: I don’t have a 3D Printer, have next to zero experience using one and never heard of this controversy before. I’m just asking out of curiosity)

I’m in favor of people using open-source software to use better the stuff they bought, but putting aside my bias that seems pretty clearly an illegal thing, can someone ELI5 how could they not lose if they’re sued?

What I understood is that Bambu Lab sold those printers advertising cloud access to their proprietary servers through their “official means”, but a lot of people used unofficial open-source software to access it, because it worked better. Then at a certain point, the company disabled access to apps that weren’t their proprietary one, but people kept using them. Which prompted the company to sue.

It’s an ass move to do, but the open-source software wasn’t officially supported even before, right? And now it’s still used to access their company cloud, not a separate one, right?

From my understanding they didn’t remove any functionality that was officially advertised, and people are now using unauthorized software to access the company’s proprietary cloud, did I misunderstand something?

Anti-competitive practices are business or government practices that prevent or reduce competition in a market. Antitrust laws ensure businesses do not engage in competitive practices that harm other, usually smaller, businesses or consumers. These laws are formed to promote healthy competition within a free market by limiting the abuse of monopoly power.

It’s exactly what these words mean.

Oh I love personalization. When I am the one doing it and not an algorithm doing what it “thinks” is better for me.

This is a matter of anti-competitive behavior and market manipulation. And historically, the EU has always been against that (especially if it’s detrimental to them, of course).

They’re in favor of regulation, but definitely not of individual companies handling it.

Link please? Everything I found on that guy’s profile is this post with the same screenshot of the ToS the article has, nothing about the mail or confirmation that it’s not coming.

Being looking around for a while, no outlet seems to have any screenshot or transcript of it. Starting to think it’s just something Twitter randos hallucinated and a couple outlets fell for it, sadly.

I’m “mad” at the journalists because, as far as my searching goes, there is no proof that this email actually exists and it’s only been cited by some randos on Twitter, not even by the outlets that reportedly paid the deposit.

The article itself doesn’t even mention anything from the mail, it’s just excerpts from the ToS change. Nothing that would allude to this “confirmation” the title leads to believe. I’d like to see actual screenshots from this supposed mail if you make a title like that, otherwise it’s just more fuel for the MAGAs to claim everything bad we say about Trump is manufactured lies.

That excerpt is from the updated terms.

The terms say that there is “no binding sale contract”, but there is nothing in the article that “confirms” it’s not being made (it probably isn’t, but there’s still no confirmation).

Well, tbh the article itself lists three outlets that did exactly that (NBC News, 404 Media and Android Authority), so that’s how I would read it before jumping to conclusions.

Yeah, this is just classic clickbait journalism.

I mean, we all know who are we talking about and that the phone doesn’t and will never exist. But the word “confirm” has a meaning, and those updated terms still don’t “confirm” anything.