It’s an answer on if one is sure if they are not just a fancy autocomplete.

More directly; we can’t be sure if we are not some autocomplete program in a fancy computer but since we’re having an experience then we are conscious programs.

Is there a reason to think all the other companies couldn’t start doing it to?

The only thing one can be 100% certain of is that one is having an experience. If we were a fancy autocomplete then we’d know we had it 😉

A TV used to be clearly different from a computer monitor. Hopefully monitors resist this for longer but no reason to think this can’t happen there.

Rather have a TV from 1999. Hope LG goes under.

Talking about “IP” as if it were a single thing confuses any debate. Copyright is not a patent, which is not a trademark - they do different things.

Software patents actually should be deleted. It is impractical to avoid accidentally infringing as there are multiple ways to describe the same system using totally different technical descriptions. Copyright for software was enough.

Tax BigTech to fund a universal basic income (UBI)

With the minimal amount of work added the combined work can now have added restrictions. They’re pushover licenses.

Devs are free to choose whatever license they want but in the pathfinding problem of interacting with others then “protecting the source” is the wrong target node. Copyleft is a tool to help people.

That is what I would mean by “open source” but I can’t blame the uninitiated from thinking it means something else. Consider every-day usage of the word “open” - an open door could be fully open, just have a small gap or even shut but unlocked (“come in, the door is open”). A well-meaning developer could think Unreal engine is open source because they can see the source code (the code is “open” to them). Words don’t have innate definitions, they have usages.

The intent of copyleft is to ensure freedoms for the recipients of derivatives of your works. In software that means the users of forks. Copyleft restricts you to the same license (or a compatible one) to prevent you adding more restrictions. ““More permissive”” software licenses can be redistributed with the same license but often it’s a more restrictive license (e.g. MIT -> proprietary).

Open source is just that

“Open” is an unspecific, a range of openness from not redistributable to (libre) free software.

own forever

Ownership implies control - being able to maintain/repair, modify or even resell.

To be in control of software you need access to it’s source code, and have the right to share changes with others.

Although Plex is running on your server it isn’t there to do what you want… unless Plex’s real owner permits it.

That’s how proprietary software works.

An online menu requires power to be used (on people’s phones and the server). Is that really a minor contribution in comparison to printing paper and maybe laminating it?

“Stargate” is already taken for another science fiction. You’ll have to pick another name.

If I hacked a server to get content then I would be circumventing payment at it shouldn’t be up to me how it responds to requests, I don’t own it. Google trying to enforce playing adverts via software running on my property is an unjust overreach. The user choosing what displays on their own monitor is not “circumvention”, it’s claiming ownership over your computing. Google could choose to verify on their servers if I’ve paid (in normal currency) but instead their servers act like adverts are an optional donation.

Deleted my ebay account but very rarely will buy on the site. I’ve yet to find a UK alternative.

It will be great to see more PC hardware reviews with Linux in mind.

Does SteamOS offer something significant over other GNU+Linux distributions? Waiting for it to release as a catalyst to start including Linux seems a bit odd. I hope it won’t be like waiting for Half Life 3.