irotsoma
Yeah, software patents in the US especially, have become a way for companies to either kill competition, or make buying up ridiculous patents and suing for infringement their primary source of income.
Primary issue is the patent office has few officers that are technical enough to understand the overlap of the specific industry and software. So, they tend to just allow anything, especially from larger companies that they're told to assume have the expertise if they don't since their load is too large to have time to learn new stuff and truly research if something is obvious or not.
YouTube did make some changes to their terms primarily for creators that get paid for content. They added some new LLM-based scanning of content to find stuff that is too repetitive or didn't contain enough original content. Assuming the creators you looked at have mostly original content rather than remixing of content which may be misinterpreted by LLMs as not being "original enough", they could be falling victim to overaggressive hits if they use a consistent format in their content since LLMs don't really understand context, only patterns.
I'd be interested to find out if the creators got any notification from YouTube on the reason for removal of the content.
Fortunately, I've also got autism... That's fortunate, right?
Considering the community this is posted in, I think it's fair to mention (if maybe not directly link to) there are devices that decode DRM and other encoding and pass on a stream that can be watched without needing all of that. The ones I saw were under $100. Though it's definitely possible that these may get cracked down on eventually either by customs or changes in the DRM that requires internet connectivity to decode which has been discussed though seems dumb to need internet to watch a broadcast signal, but greed often causes stupid things like that.
An antenna? If you don't have a TV, you can get a tuner dongle and antenna for your PC and use VLC or other streaming video clients. Unfortunately, the services that take over-the-air signals and put them online usually get killed off by lawsuits. But tuner dongles and half decent, compact antennas are pretty cheap.
If it's POSIX compliant then it will work on all versions of Linux/Unix. Otherwise it depends on specific implementations that have branched for decades.
I was just chatting with some people about how I've discovered how bad habit and conditioning affect neurotypical people. This was in the context of visual, audio, and other gender cues that cause NT people to misgender trans and non binary people. I had recently discovered how the gender conditioning can make it difficult for NT people to change when things are automatic in their brains. They aren't used to having to concentrate to remember words like i do, so they don't have that easy place to inject conscious decisions.
So yeah, there are some things we are superior at and if NT people would just accommodate our disadvantages, our advantages could benefit them. But the current political atmosphere is isolationist and individualism, so they want everything to benefit them since they can't stand to collaborate to get the benefits we offer.
Possibly, but I don't see Google doing that either. It's not about where the app comes from really. The thing they are going to restrict is the developer. A developer can not have their app installed on a certified phone, regardless of where the user got the app, if the developer is not registered.
So, since there are no regulations to allow a user to install apps from any chosen developer, only from any chosen app store, there likely will be no regulatory recourse like Apple is facing as mentioned by the OP.
This is different, by design. Sideloading and alternate app stores are still perfectly fine. It's just that the developer has to give a bunch of personal into to Google in order for their app not to be rejected by the phone itself. Middleman doesn't matter which is where most if the regulations are. Problem is that many open source apps don't have a developer willing to spend the time and money or give up their privacy in order to publish an app they don't make money on. So it's designed to kill off FOSS apps.
More evidence that although I love the idea of the MIT license, it is not good when large corporate interests and their money get involved. It's too easy for the code to get scooped up and relicensed or just hidden away. Copyleft licensed projects are the only ones I'll work on anymore.
Probably just to try to make Garmin's product less useful in the short term while the case drags out. Or as a way to get Garmin to acquire them. Strava basically seems to have bought up some competitors that were failing and they have been on the way downhill. So at this stage usually these companies start cost cutting and using any means necessary to increase their perceived value for sale. This gives Garmin an incentive to buy them as that would end the lawsuit and they'd then acquire some additional defensive patents.