It fucking sucks and will slow down the transition to electric cars.

We already have that shit in France too. The national companies sell prohibitively expensive cars with some amount of financial help. But if you buy a Chinese car (even with a demonstrably proven carbon footprint) you don’t get any help.

Basically this is about protecting our car industry and shielding from their incapacity to provide a value electric car to the masses. Nothing to do with emissions.

It’s not an LLM, just a subtitles generator for video.

I thought it was obvious you wouldn’t say “hey I just took your benchy model and changed N vertices”. But just “happened” to inadvertently create a benchy lookalike.

Also there is definitely a point where it would be safe to reproduce the benchy design otherwise we could point at anything on earth and say “that’s a heavily modified benchy.”

Or are we all benchy? Am I a benchy with a thousand modified vertices?

So let’s be pragmatic there is nothing preventing me even to start a new design that vaguely ressemble the Benchy design. All it takes is for that “vaguely” to be enough so that you could argue you were not making a benchy redesign but just stumbled on something that could look Like a benchy.

I would actually suggest to make this new benchmark as close as possible to the original design as a middle finger to these idiots.

Any 3D printing lawyer interested in creating a 4D benchy? Also the same benchy but with just enough modifications to be legally safe?

Something I wonder is how would it even be possible for vendors to ignore PayPal is doing something fishy.

You got a guy who’s job is to monitor who is getting their affiliate money. He sees PayPal collecting millions of affiliate money.

The other players in this game (of affiliate link) knew very well that honey was doing something fishy. Why didn’t they contest it?

Because they were doing the same kind of “last click” bullshit. If that was so unfair there would be a trial already. They all followed this stupid rule and the megalag video talks about it.

The fact that Linus Tech Tips knew and we are supposed to believe the rest of the affiliate links mafia didn’t see a thing?

What if there is no law about who gets affiliate money?

Realistically most extensions open many links in the background. Even a simple adblocker will “open links” or URLs in the background to perform updates of lists etc.

The difference here is the malware was installed by the user after accepting a user agreement that probably covers network use…

Also they hijack the affiliation when the users interact with the extension and not with the website where the link for the product is.

I doubt honestly this will be a good angle to attack Honey.

IMO the fact that users are told that the best coupon will be used even though it’s demonstrably not true is a much more provable issue.

Especially since the extension opens a tab for an instant makes me think they didn’t really try to be super super sneaky.

Hmm so even Reuters is in this cabal. This is concerning.

About that is it normal that the other videos are not released?

I feel like he is losing the momentum he had with that video series and the more time he waits the more likely the gag orders or retaliation from PayPal.

What if Megalag can’t release the next videos because a horde of lawyers is already on his back?

Surprisingly I think Honey decided not to be able to sell user data (Ludwig sponsorship’s with honey was pushing this).

Basically they were making so much money on affiliate links they probably thought it wasn’t worth risking to be caught for some privacy reason.

Technically, there is not necessarily a partnership in a situation where an affiliate link was stolen. Any user with the extension would see his affiliation given to PayPal.

Also, I can’t help but think it will be very difficult to account for how much money was “redirected” by Honey. The creator would need data from YouTube that I don’t think is logged for much time. So you wouldn’t know who clicked and when and even after that I thing the vendor of the product would need to be involved also.

Who knows what LegalEagle intends to do, they shouldn’t be too clear on their intent and keep their strategy secret. Maybe they hope for some kind of settlement because I think this is more damaging in term of PR than it will ever be in terms of fines. It’s like the recent case of Apple, they choosed to pay to expedite the process but never admitted guilt?

Again I’m no lawyer let’s trust Legal Eagle and see where it goes. But PayPal will be a strong case for sure.

I don’t think the case you consider as “legal precedent” is as relevant as you think.

But I guess we will see.

Then it remains to be proven that it is illegal to poach affiliate links like that. Because Honey says they just follow strictly the “last click” rule that is common practice in the field.

It’s bullshit but if that bullshit rule is indeed the standard practice then it will be hard to fight.

That’s the thing PayPal Honey is saying they are respecting the “last click” rule and in their eyes there is nothing illegal in that.

Even if the creator as nothing to do with honey they are saying the last click is in honey just before checkout so they get the money. I understand this is a terrible excuse but it seems that’s the defense they will follow. Basically they are hiding behind that stupid last click rule and using it to justify it’s perfectly legal.

Basically Honey says “we just strictly comply to a standard practice in affiliate links”.

This user has only one post.

It is spam.

Honey has in its terms of services that you accept not to take part in a class action lawsuit and favor arbitration. It seems like these kind of clause is enforceable usually so I’m curious to see how Legal Eagle will navigate the issue.

Edit: Either the creators sue Honey and they will argue it is not illegal to poach affiliate links because they follow the “last click” rule that is standard (it’s just that they pushed it to the extreme).

Or its the users that are scammed because they were told the best coupon would be used. But if it’s the users, they are under the EULA and should have to comply with the no class action rule.

I’m not a lawyer but this is how I understand the setup for this trial to be.

Are they modifying URLs?

As far as I know they steal cookies but don’t change the URL.

Also, I think the bizarre market practice of “last click takes attribution” seems to be also common in EU.

Unfortunately just because it’s shady doesn’t make it immediately illegal even here in EU.

And the response from PayPal Honey shows they want to fight it in court. Which don’t think they would do if they thought it would have been considered highly illegal.

They found a loophole and abused it to steal creators (and users).

https://lemmy.world/post/23921992

Reuters is using the same kind of title.

Are they trying to say that Musk is the main worker at Starlink too?

I think it’s the wall of text that made your post look suspicious. So people downvoted it and now it doesn’t have any traction.

I watched the vid and there isn’t really anything controversial in it but I will note that I couldn’t find any link to the related scientific report Anton mentions in his video.

It’s an interesting topic I didn’t even know existed and even though YT titles are always clickbaity the content of the video is not really saying that this is an imminent threat but something to be cautious about.

I was searching a bit about the subject and I think it’s a fairly legitimate concern.

Basically, life was always oriented one way on earth and some scientists are creating that mirror life.

But also this kind of research is important because it would give us a better understanding on life origin and maybe extraterrestrial life.

So at the very least I wouldn’t say it’s yet another conspiracy theory or dramatized news.

As mentioned by ChatGPT (so be cautious with that assertion) even if we created this kind of mirror life it would probably die quickly without the “mirror nutrients” existing anywhere?

I didn’t watch that video yet but Anton Petrov is a fairly reputable science commenter.

Again, I only did a quick pre-research before diving more in the subject. Do your own research.

I would argue they don’t usually say it that way for Musk either so that’s why I asked what your point was.

Also, I would appreciate not being downvoted because people assume I’m pro Musk. I’m not. I just try to understand why this sentence would trigger a comment like yours.

Do you imply that this article’s sentence was that way to promote Musk? I just thought that since Musk is a prominent personality that is constantly on the news anyway there is nothing really surprising in presenting SpaceX as his business. Especially when it is his business.