brandocorp

The article says what he's doing is clearly illegal, and backs it up with the law that he's violating. He's offering, through a lottery, a chance to receive payment in order to incentivize people to register to vote. CAH is probably treading close to the line, but I can't say it's clearly illegal. What Musk is described as doing seems to be pretty clearly illegal, to me.

Whoever knowingly or willfully gives false information as to his name, address or period of residence in the voting district for the purpose of establishing his eligibility to register or vote, or conspires with another individual for the purpose of encouraging his false registration to vote or illegal voting, or pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both

Can you explain why you don't seem to think what Musk is doing is illegal?

I see YouTube videos linked, and I remember being on this site before YouTube existed. I don't think it has changed all that much, though.

I think you might be thinking of Cruise?

https://gizmodo.com/cruise-robotaxi-human-assistance-kyle-vogt-1850997279

I think this is true, but I also grew up without Internet or social media so maybe things were more regional as opposed to this larger shared culture those things have enabled. So that may be part of it?

Maybe the better thing to concentrate on is why you felt like that comment was necessary. You didn't seem to have a goal behind it, other than drawing more attention. It's really not relevant to the discussion or the post. So why post it? It felt like your intention was just to talk shit about a random person, and maybe you should think about that.

This was my interpretation as well. I frequently have weird abstract dreams, where I'm often not present or not involved, and the dreams sometimes don't involve people at all. The ones without people are weird and hard to explain. I assumed that's what the lower left panel is trying to show.

This would be awesome, but I just don't see it happening this way. They have to work with the copyright holders who set those kinds of terms and who have the majority of the leverage in negotiating those terms. Unfortunately, I don't see any reason this kind of deal would be made.

The business model is to force consumers to purchase and repurchase the same content over and over. Changing only the format, or distribution method, or platform of consumption. This kind of deal would undercut that business model.

What have you explained? That RCS is not stewarded by the IETF? That's not the crux of the issue. My original claim was that RCS was more open than iMessage and that RCS is not owned or controlled by Google. Tell me where I'm wrong, and back it up with good sources. Or not. Whatever you're feeling like.

https://www.gsma.com/futurenetworks/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/RCC.07-v11.0.pdf

The specification exists. It's not free as in beer. This is really beside the point. Google implemented an RCS messaging client. Your cellular carriers implement the RCS endpoints the clients use.

No. I'm sorry. You can't just say it and make it true. Please show me how Google owns RCS or prevents other developers from implementing it within their own apps.

Google doesn't own the RCS protocol. This is like saying they own the SMTP protocol because they provide Gmail. They are just one company that has implemented the protocol in their default text message app. They built end-to-end encryption into their implementation, which is currently closed source. I'm guessing this is what you're referring to.

Anyone can implement RCS. It may cost you some money and some time, but it is possible. That's the difference I was originally trying to highlight.

Are you sure about that?

In early 2020, it was estimated that RCS was available from 88 operators in 59 countries with approximately 390 million users per month.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services