The player that got the link back to Youtube removed allows publishers to sell their own ads. Seems like Youtube is worried about the content of ads it doesn't control and wants to limit its association with them, so if, say, someone sees a porn ad, they blame the site the player is on, not Youtube.
If the controller was $55 yesterday and $62 today there would definitely be shenanigans, but a week ago? It could just be that a sale ended since you last looked.
Anyway, I don't see $62 Xbox controllers on their site, checking from Nova Scotia. Official controllers are the usual $70-something and there's PowerA brand for $55.
I think the Verge messed up: the announcement said there would be a full-text RSS feed for subscribers, but they've actually added full article text to the existing feed, where normally I'd only get 2 or 3 paragraphs.
Their sister site Vox made a similar mistake; their RSS feed already had full text, but once they added the paywall I got the full text of articles that were paywalled if I tried to click through to the site. It's like Vox Media doesn't fully understand how its RSS feeds work.
The official announcement says they did because people have been asking for a way to support the site, but it's not at all clear those people had a paywall in mind. Ars Technica has had subscriptions for years, and they paywall extra site functionality like topic filtering and a full-text RSS feed, not content.
Trump has said Canada and Mexico need to stop drugs and illegal immigrants from crossing into the US to prevent the tariffs. Border security will be pretty easy for her to blame on Trudeau.
That setting and Microsoft's "Connected Experiences" predate the current AI nonsense. Here's a list of connected experiences the OneNote app sent me to when I tapped "Learn More". It's all stuff that does some degree of analysis on your data, so somebody probably thought treating AI as a "connected experience" made sense.
They seem to be mostly upset about Apple requiring browsers on iOS to use Webkit instead of implementing their own backend. Which is yet another problem the UK wouldn't have if they'd stayed in the EU, where that's already been dealt with under the DMA.
That makes no sense. Isn't the reason for keeping trans women out of the ladies room supposed to be that they are men and pose a threat to "real" women? If MTG thinks she can take a trans woman in a fight that kind of goes against her case...
This is the same dipshit that blocked hundreds of military promotions because he didn't like the Pentagon's pro-access abortion policy. Even Mitch McConnell pushed back on him then.
Terms requiring users to sue in specific courts are usually enforceable, Vanderbilt Law School Professor Brian Fitzpatrick told Ars today. "There might be an argument that there was no consent to the new terms, but if you have to click on something at some point acknowledging you read the new terms, consent will probably be found," he told us in an email.
A user attempting to sue X in a different state or district probably wouldn't get very far. "If a suit was filed in the wrong court, it would be dismissed (if filed in state court) or transferred (if filed in federal court)," Fitzpatrick said.
Elon Musk's X updated its terms of service to steer user lawsuits to US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the same court where a judge who bought Tesla stock is overseeing an X lawsuit against the nonprofit Media Matters for America.
The new terms that apply to users of the X social network say that all disputes related to the terms "will be brought exclusively in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas or state courts located in Tarrant County, Texas, United States, and you consent to personal jurisdiction in those forums and waive any objection as to inconvenient forum."
X recently moved its headquarters from San Francisco to Texas, but the new headquarters are not in the Northern District or Tarrant County. X's headquarters are in Bastrop, the county seat of Bastrop County, which is served by US District Court for the Western District of Texas.
The player that got the link back to Youtube removed allows publishers to sell their own ads. Seems like Youtube is worried about the content of ads it doesn't control and wants to limit its association with them, so if, say, someone sees a porn ad, they blame the site the player is on, not Youtube.