Plagiarism is obviously a word with very strong negative connotations. If you want to discuss the technology and it's differences between a different solution that tries to solve the same problem and not accuse someone of stealing, it's usually best not to use this type of language in general.
Wouldn't the unfair advantage only hold water if they blocked unauthorized accessories only with online multi-player games and leave single-player experiences alone?
It's baffling especially because all of the other handhelds ship with a desktop operating system by default.
Yeah, I've read around their documentation and they have a pretty compelling reason why one should prefer search engines where you directly pay to the search provider instead of relying on third parties such as advertisers to pay for your search usage.
I pay for premium.
I spend like 20x time on YouTube compared to other premium streaming services, knowing the money at least partially goes to the creators and that it's usually a much larger source of revenue than the midroll ads (and the fact I spend like 40% of my watch time on an iPad) makes it pretty worth it to me. Other than that I use uBlock on medium/high, but if there was an extention that could skip the sponsor segments inside the videos themselves I'd use it in a heartbeat.
It doesn't really matter though. It will take away jobs from people in creative industries that only creative people were able to do before. The end result is basically the same.
That's because Mastodon doesn't have direct messages. It is not a chat platform. You can bend the privacy settings to publish posts similarly to DMs, but no one should use it as such.
I think the best solution is to sell monster energy drinks that the players would have to chug to prove they're real gamers.
I'd love for something like a watchmaker simulator to exist. You'd get broken watches, and you'd be tasked to take them apart, clean them and fix them up. Basically, something very similar to those almost ASMR videos on youtube where someone restores those completely broken things into a pristine state.
Copyright doesn't apply just to stuff copied verbatim though, it applies to a lot more. It really doesn't matter if it is or isn't stored verbatim. Translations and derivative works are not exact copies and still fall under copyright. Copyright even applies to broad things such as "a concept of a character" and this can result in some pretty strange arguments some copyright holders might use, such as "Sherlock Holmes that doesn't smile is public domain, but Sherlock Holmes who shows emotion is copyright infringement" as described here.
It doesn't matter if an exact copy of the book was made. It matters if the core information that book carried was taken as a whole and used elsewhere. And even though the data was transformed as statistical information, the information is still there in that model. The model itself is basically just an "unauthorized translation" of hundreds of thousands of works into a very esoteric format.
The whole argument of "inspiration" is also misleading. Inspiration is purely a human trait. We're not talking about humans being inspired. We're talking about humans using copyrighted material to create a model, and about computers using that model to create content. Unless you'd argue that humans should be considered the same thing as machines in the eyes of the law, this argument simply doesn't work.
Funny thing is that Threads is the new player who is currently dominating the microblogging market while Twitter is just watching. Technically speaking, Twitter is the one being "cucked" here.
They have open sourced their client software and libraries, but the core of what they provide is closed source software that runs on their servers.