www.nytimes.com Supreme Court Won’t Hold Tech Companies Liable for User Posts
The justices ruled in one case that a law allowing suits for aiding terrorism did not apply to the ordinary activities of social media companies.
I mean, you can already download models that have been fine tuned to fix issues with hands... but still it's great that they continue to improve the model!
I would recommend that you check out Golden Sun.
I agree with the hesitancy on WD. They're also starting to automatically flag NAS drives older than 3 years with a warning flag. Plus when they shipped out SMR drives as Red drives a few years back... https://youtu.be/cLGi8sPLkLY
Agreed, a few states (4-5?) have been able to fully eliminate the biggest issue with civil asset forfeiture (including removing the loophole that allows their state employees from working with the federal govt. to get around those restrictions).
Over half the states have started to do something about it. But as long as that loophole remains and as long as the federal govt. itself can continue to abuse civil asset forfeiture, we'll continue to see problems.
Unanimous Supreme Court ruling protects website owners from liability of user posts
An excellent decision. If it had gone the other way we likely would have seen social media websites shutdown entirely and comments disabled from YouTube. This also would have directly affected anyone in the U.S. that wanted to run an instance of Lemmy (or any federated instance that users could post content on).
The rulings were in regards to Section 230 which was a law passed in 1996 aimed at protecting services which allow users to post their own content.
The supreme court tackled 2 different cases concerning this:
- Whether social media platforms can be held liable for what their users have said.
- This was very specific to whether algorithms that refer tailored content to individual users can cause companies to be considered as knowingly aiding and abetting terrorists (if their pro-terrorist content is referred to other users).
Interesting, I didn't realize that Russia was already renting out the base pre-2014. Thank you for that context.
Perhaps an option could be that Ukraine gets their land back, but there's some agreement that Russia can rent out the land around the port at Sevastopol.
Ukraine gets paid for the use of their land (and ultimately they still own it), and Russia gets exclusive access to that part of the port where they can do whatever they need.
Unanimous ruling in supreme court fixes problem where the government was allowed to sell someone's home and keep everything even if they only owed $1k in debt.
www.reuters.com US Supreme Court curbs states' property tax 'windfall'
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday curbed state and local governments from seizing and selling the homes of people with unpaid property taxes and keeping the proceeds beyond the amount owed, deeming the practice unconstitutional in a ruling in favor of a 94-year-old woman who battled tax authorities...
This specific case revolved around a 94 yr old woman in Minnesota who owed $15k in taxes. Her home was taken away and sold for $40k and the government kept everything from the auction.
It's hard to believe that this was ever legal, this is a major win for common sense rulings.