Techdirt (original) (raw)

Lawsuit: Cops Stood By While Elderly Woman Was Stabbed 68 Times; Cops: Hey, We Yelled At The House

from the suddenly-incapable-of-a-forcible-entry dept

This isn’t a good look for the Las Vegas Metro PD, even if it’s completely supported by court precedent. No matter how often law enforcement agencies sling around the phrase “protect and serve,” they have almost no legal obligation to do either of those things.

Sometimes a “failure to intervene” allegation might undermine a cop’s attempt to secure qualified immunity for violations committed by other cops, but when it comes to crimes being committed against regular people, cops simply aren’t legally obliged to stop crimes in progress even when they’re already at the scene.

But this lawsuit is hoping a court might find otherwise. Whether or not it does, it will definitely expose some cops for what they are: lazy opportunists who aren’t really in the life-saving business. Even if the officers are found to be on the right side of judicial precedent, they’re not going to come out of this looking like people who should be employed as police officers.

Las Vegas police officers stood outside listening as a 74-year-old woman was stabbed 68 times and killed by one of her sons in her home, a lawsuit filed Saturday alleged.

How the Metropolitan Police Department responded to the event prompted the woman’s other sons to file a lawsuit alleging, among other things, negligence and wrongful death.

[…]

Bonilla was arrested and booked on one charge of murder of an elderly or protected person. After pleading guilty in 2023, he was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole.

Pablo Bonilla — someone well known to Las Vegas law enforcement — murdered his mother in a most horrific manner. Then he walked out the door and surrendered to the law enforcement officers who just basically hung out outside of the house and waited for the murder-in-progress to resolve itself.

They can’t even say they tried everything they could to prevent this murder from happening. The officers’ report makes it clear they did nothing more than shout in the direction of the house from the safety of their cop car. And in all my years of reporting on police misconduct, I have never seen this particular description of officers’ (in)action:

Bonilla’s arrest report said that officers “challenged the apartment” using a vehicle bullhorn because the apartment’s patio and front door were guarded by metal gates. About 30 minutes after they arrived, they heard Zuniga screaming for help, according to the lawsuit. Afterward, Bonilla appeared at the doorway of the apartment, covered in blood, police said. He was taken into custody.

What even the fuck is that. The apartment wasn’t murdering Paula Prada Zuniga. Her son was. And since when have mental gates on doors and patios ever stopped cops from performing forced entries? Because if that’s all it takes to stop cops from entering residences, every criminal in America can ensure undisturbed criminal activity in perpetuity with a very small investment in security non-tech.

Trust me, these cops would have blown past the supposedly impassable metal gates in a heartbeat if they thought there was cash to seize or drugs to bust or a warrantless search to be had. But when it came to hearing an elderly woman screaming for help as she was brutally stabbed, the officers were suddenly faced with insurmountable obstacles that reduced them to yelling at a house from a safe distance away.

This is the worst kind of policing: officers who don’t feel it’s worth their effort, much less their time, to prevent or respond to a crime in (audible) progress. When confronted with their own laziness and (presumably) cowardice, the cops claimed they had zero chance of entering the house because the same metal gates they’d bypassed for other reasons were now the on-the-ground equivalence of… I don’t know… dealing with a foreign country with no extradition agreement in place.

This is already an absurd abdication of professionalism. But, thanks to the officers’ own report, it’s now in a realm of police failure that goes beyond what any talented satirist could actually create without destroying readers’ suspension of disbelief. “Challenged the apartment,” my ass. These officers need to be fired before they cause any more damage, either by hanging out near in-progress murders or by dragging down the entirety of the LVMPD to their level.

Filed Under: defund the police, las vegas pd, lawsuit, negligence, paula zuniga

DirecTV, Dish Strike Pointless Merger In Last Gasp Effort To Stay Relevant

from the merge-ALL-the-things! dept

Tue, Oct 1st 2024 01:41pm - Karl Bode

Culminating a deal that’s been rumored about for the better part of the last twenty years, Dish Network and DirecTV have struck a new merger in a bid to try and remain relevant. It’s not going to help.

The deal involves DirecTV acquiring Dish for one dollar, in addition to $9.75 billion in Dish’s debt. The deal will combine Dish’s 8.1 million (and shrinking) subscriber base with DirecTV’s 11 million (and shrinking) subscriber base in the hopes of creating something semi-interesting.

As per tradition, the company’s press release proclaims that the deal will result in all manner of amazing new synergies, including lower prices for consumers:

“DIRECTV was founded 30 years ago to give consumers greater choices than incumbent cable companies for video content, and the Company’s acquisition of DISH TV and Sling TV positions it to again provide more choices and better value in an industry currently dominated by large streaming platforms.”

That’s generally not what happens. Instead, the merging companies are saddled with so much new debt and distraction from the consolidation that they’re forced to either raise prices on consumers or take an axe to things like foundational customer service, driving more customers to the exits. There’s also the issue of untold layoffs as the two companies eliminate redundant positions.

Both Dish Network and DirecTV have been bleeding satellite TV subscribers for years to streaming. And while both companies have embraced streaming themselves (like Dish’s Sling TV), that hasn’t gone well either. Neither has Dish’s effort to pivot into wireless with a shitty new 5G network cobbled together by the Trump administration to try and downplay the competitive harms of the T-Mobile and Sprint merger.

You might recall that AT&T acquired DirecTV and Time Warner in the belief they could create a video advertising juggernaut. Instead the $200 billion in mergers resulted in an absolute bloodbath of debt, layoffs, higher consumer prices and a worse overall product. AT&T jettisoned its remaining 70% of DirecTV this week at a major loss.

These are dying companies that lack the money, support, or strategic competence to accomplish the innovative pivots they’d like to perform, and these deals will only be a delayed distraction from the inevitable. U.S. business press coverage of the deal, as per tradition, won’t make any of that clear to the workers or consumers who’ll soon be first in line to foot the bill.

Filed Under: 5g, cable, consolidation, media, mergers, satellite tv, streaming, tv, wireless
Companies: directv, dish, echostar

Marvel, DC Lose ‘Superhero’ Trademarks After Failing To Respond To Cancellation Petition

from the super-duper dept

We have a hero in our midst, one that is responsible for freeing up the term “superhero” from its previous trademark imprisonment. If you don’t recall, Scott Richold is a British comic artist who produces the Superbabies line of comic books. Richold applied for a trademark for his comic only to find it opposed by both DC and Marvel. The two companies jointly held 4 trademarks to the term “superhero” and variations of that term. And if that strikes you as plainly absurd, given that the “superhero” is the name of an entire genre of fiction across many mediums, you’re certainly not alone.

As a result, Richold petitioned the USPTO to cancel those four trademarks, arguing that the terms have become generic. As detailed in a follow up post, I figured there were several ways that DC and Marvel might respond to the petition. They could have fought it, deploying a hefty legal war chest to try to simply bully Richold out of his attempt. Or they could have amicably released their marks, generating some amount of goodwill within the public. But I didn’t expect the companies to simply fail to respond to the petition entirely, which is exactly what happened.

As a result of the failure to respond, Richold moved for a default judgement, which would free the “superhero” term from trademark status and move it into the public domain. And, admittedly, to my surprise, the TTAB granted the default judgment.

A U.S. Trademark Office tribunal has canceled a set of “Super Hero” trademarks jointly owned by comic giants Marvel and DC at the request of a London-based comic book artist, according to a Thursday order.

The USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled for S.J. Richold’s Superbabies Ltd after Disney’s Marvel and Warner Bros’ DC did not file an answer to Superbabies’ request to invalidate the marks.

Interestingly, and somewhat frustratingly, the DC and Marvel sides of this equation aren’t responding to requests for comment. As a result, whether this failure to respond was part of a cost-saving plan in which the companies wouldn’t rack up legal fees for responses to what it knew would be a losing battle is unknown. Several commenters in previous posts suggested that might be what went on here, but we just don’t know. I would be surprised if that was indeed the case, but since most everything about this whole thing has surprised me so far, I suppose it’s possible.

But whatever the reason for the inaction on the part of DC and Marvel, the end result is that the term “superhero” and its variations are free once more for use across the different entertainment mediums.

Superbabies attorney Adam Adler of Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg said in a statement that the ruling was “not just a win for our client but a victory for creativity and innovation.”

“By establishing SUPER HEROES’ place in the public domain, we safeguard it as a symbol of heroism available to all storytellers,” Adler said.

As it probably always should have been. Not all heroes wear capes, as the saying goes, so today we salute Scott Richold.

Filed Under: scott richold, superhero, superheroes, trademark, ttab, uspto
Companies: dc comics, disney, marvel, marvel comics, superbabies, warner bros. discovery

Ohio Sheriff Tells People To Write Down Addresses Of People With Kamala Harris Signs In Their Yard

from the whole-bunch-of-dudes-running-their-own-Nottinghams dept

Forget “defund the police.” Let’s just get rid of the sheriffs. Or, at the very least, change how the job is handled.

Sheriffs are elected, which means a lot of sheriffs are less interested in providing good law enforcement than ensuring they’ve catered to their voting bases enough that they’ll be re-elected. And since it’s an elected position, it’s almost impossible to get rid of a sheriff, no matter how awful they are.

To be sure, they’re routinely awful. The most severe abuses of power are carried out by these elected officials. They preside over some of the worst law enforcement agencies in the United States. When they’re not directly enriching themselves with public funds, they’re involved in corruption and giving their subordinates free rein to terrorize, torture, and kill the people they’re supposed to be serving.

Because their power is almost absolute (in terms of immunity), they’re absolutely corrupted. Even if they’re not, let’s say, starving inmates to increase their personal bank accounts, they’re doing stuff that shows how little they care about actual law enforcement in hopes of rousing the rabble that will return them to power during the next election.

That brings us to this Ohio sheriff, who used his personal Facebook page to encourage his supporters to engage in voter intimidation. That post has since been deleted, but here’s a screenshot, followed by a transcription of Portage County Sheriff Bruce Zuchowski’s missive.

When people ask me…What’s gonna happen if the Flip – Flopping, Laughing Hyena Wins?? I say…write down all the addresses of the people who had her signs in their yards! Sooo…when the Illegal human “Locust” (which she supports!) Need places to live…We’ll already have the addresses of the their New families…who supported their arrival!

Note the weird punctuation. Note the random capitalization. Not the over-reliance on ellipses. But above all else, note what Sheriff Zuchowski is telling people to do and how he phrases it. That’s some MAGA shit™ right there.

He’s asking the followers of his government-related page to engage in something that sure looks a whole lot like voter intimidation. The implicit request is that these addresses be shared with the sheriff. On top of that, there’s the use of the word “locusts” to describe immigrants, suggesting they’re an elemental force that only seeks to destroy and, more importantly, incapable of doing anything other than acting instinctively.

On top of that, note that Zuchowski doubled down on this by posting it to his regular sheriff account as well as his personal account, making it impossible to claim (as he’s attempting to do now) that this speech can be completely separated from his public office position. That may come back to haunt him.

But everything should come back to haunt him. The sheriff cannot be trusted to be an elected official that has the power to detain, arrest, seize property, deploy force (deadly or otherwise), or oversee other law enforcement officers.

Case in point: more than 60 voter intimidation complaints have been filed against the Sheriff’s office since the sheriff sent out these posts. Further case in point: the sheriff has been allegedly forcing local inmates to, in essence, campaign for him.

As reported by Cleveland 19 News, a former inmate named Christopher McCullough said he and other inmates were made to put up campaign signs throughout the county. They also set up and served at Sheriff Zuchowski’s campaign fundraiser steak dinner. They even constructed a building where Zuchowski sold campaign materials.

To be exceedingly fair, the inmates were paid $3/week (plus all the cigarettes they could smoke!) for doing Zuchowski’s campaign work for him. Of course, the fact that this was illegal doesn’t seem to have bothered the sheriff at all.

Ohio law prohibits using public employees for partisan political activities, but since when are MAGA sheriffs expected to obey the law?

More fun stuff about this asshat: he probably wouldn’t have taken his post down if it weren’t for a legal threat from the ACLU. The complaints about voter intimidation (most of which originated from inside his county) appear to have made no difference.

Then there’s this, which shows the sheriff still doesn’t care whether he intimidates Harris voters, subjugates immigrants by referring to them as pestilence, or is now bathing in the national spotlight as an example of everything that’s broken in the United States’ sheriff system.

His new post, which is still live on Facebook, offers up an “apology” that simply says everyone else is wrong, other than him and his supporters.

Here it is verbatim (with all weird spelling, capitalization, and punctuation marks intact):

As the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of Portage County, I have sworn to protect ALL citizens of my County. Recently, I placed a post on my personal facebook page that may have been a little misinterpreted??

I…as the elected sheriff, do have a first amendment right as do all citizens. If the citizens of Portage County want to elect an individual who has supported open borders (which I’ve personally visited Twice!) and neglected to enforce the laws of our Country…then that is their prerogative. With elections, there are consequences. That being said…I believe that those who vote for individuals with liberal policies have to accept responsibility for their actions! I am a Law Man…Not a Politician!

I would also like to Thank…The Overwhelming Support I am receiving from many people in Portage County who are afraid or are Not allowed to agree with me publicly!

Stay Strong and God Bless!!

First off, it’s weird/stupid that you would capitalize “Chief Law Enforcement Officer” (which isn’t a real position) but not “facebook.” Second, you want a comma after “I” in the second paragraph, rather than an ellipsis. Preaching to the electorate choir is the exact opposite of being “a Law Man…Not a Politician.”

Finally, “Thank[ing]” the “Overwhelming Support” you have received from Portage County residents suggests they are neither “afraid” or “Not allowed to agree” with you “publicly.” If anything, this non-apology makes you look stupider. You’re trying to play the victim while still being the bigoted bully who engaged in arguable voter suppression. Pretending your calls to write down addresses of supporters of your political opponents have somehow been “misinterpreted” means nothing more than you didn’t expect your churlish asshattery would make national headlines, nor subject you to comments and complaints for people who don’t actually support you or your irrational hatred.

The only upside here is that you and your department won’t be allowed to directly intimidate voters this November.

The Portage County Board of Elections voted to prohibit Sheriff Bruce D. Zuchowski or his deputies from serving as security at its office to ensure that November is “free of any concerns of intimidation with this security in place,” according to a Facebook post shared Friday by board member Randi Clites.

“As Board Members we are charged with preventing violence and disorder at the polls, and to conduct a safe and secure election process. It is clear by public comments in the past week there is perceived intimidation by our Sheriff against certain voters,” Clites’ Facebook post reads.

Good. Security will apparently be handled by private contractors or officers from the Ravenna Police Department. But even this statement contains hedging from board member that suggests the sheriff will still get to call most of the shots as long as he remains in office.

While it is not my responsibility to weigh in on the Sheriffs comments directly, I feel strongly it is in my responsibility to make sure I do what is in my authority to make sure every voter in Portage County feels safe casting their ballot for any candidate they choose.

My dude, it is literally your responsibility to weigh in on these comments. If you choose not to, you’re just signalling to the sheriff’s voting bloc that sheriff can say whatever stupid or illegal thing that slides across that massive wet spot the sheriff calls a “brain” without being directly criticized for his bigotry or implicit threats to disrupt the democratic process. Don’t be a coward. Do some direct commenting. And get to work figuring out how you can keep this dipshit from continuing to act as a force of political partisanship, rather than the law enforcement official he’s supposed to be.

Filed Under: abuse of power, bruce zuchowski, ohio, police misconduct, portgage county, sheriffs, voter intimidation

Daily Deal: Database Administration Super Bundle

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The Database Administration Super Bundle has 9 courses to help you go from data novice to expert administrator. You’ll discover how to build and manage databases with MySQL and MongoDB. Courses also cover Microsoft SQL Server, Informatica, Minitab, Tableau, and regression modeling. It’s on sale for $60.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

John Kerry Accurately Explains First Amendment, MAGA World Loses Its Mind

from the up-is-down dept

In this stupid partisan world we live in, the MAGA world has decided that simply accurately explaining that the First Amendment does not allow for the suppression of speech (which is a good thing!) is somehow a call for abolishing the First Amendment. This isn’t even “blaming the messenger.” It’s misinterpreting the messenger and demanding he be drawn and quartered.

We’ve pointed out a few times how ridiculous both Democrats and Republicans have been of late when it comes to the First Amendment. Unfortunately, both have been making arguments for trimming back our First Amendment rights. Donald Trump has called for jailing those who criticize the Supreme Court (something, I should note, he regularly does himself).

However, as we’ve pointed out, Democrats don’t have the best track record on speech either. They’ve been caught calling for jailing social media execs over their speech, punishing booksellers for selling books they dislike, and making certain kinds of misinformation illegal.

So, I was certainly concerned when I saw a few headlines this week about John Kerry’s conversation last week at a World Economic Forum event, in which he talked about the First Amendment as a “major block” to punishing companies that spread disinformation.

His word choice was awkward and could be interpreted as criticizing the First Amendment. However, after watching the video clip of him saying it, I realized he’s just accurately saying what reality is: the First Amendment is a block to removing disinformation.

Because… it is? And that’s generally a good thing.

He was asked about how to deal with disinformation online, and he says, factually, that you can’t use the law to suppress that speech:

“You know there’s a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you’re going to have some accountability on facts, etc. But look, if people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda, and they’re putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence…”

If he then said “and that’s why we need to repeal the First Amendment,” then I’d be right there with the people concerned about this. And I would rather he followed up that statement by saying something along the lines of “and it’s a good thing the First Amendment is a block to such things.” But he still doesn’t appear to be saying that the First Amendment needs to change. He appears to be explaining reality to a questioner from the audience who wants to suppress speech.

But, of course, the MAGAsphere has gone crazy over this. Fox News, the National Review, and RT (of course) are all hammering it. On YouTube, the MAGA nutjobs are going crazy over it. Just a few examples, starting with everyone’s most mocked Russian-paid troll victim, Tim Pool:

Except, nowhere does Kerry call for “ending” free speech at all. He just notes that the First Amendment blocks suppressing speech by the government. Which is true! You’d think that the Russian-paid Tim Pool would, you know, appreciate that?

There are a bunch of others just like this:

Again, if he had actually called to abolish the First Amendment or even to weaken it, I’d be here calling it out. And again, as mentioned above, there have been other Democrats that have, in fact, called for unconstitutional speech suppression.

From the descriptions I initially saw of what he said, I was all ready to write a piece slamming Kerry for this. But then I watched it. And he just was… explaining accurately that the First Amendment blocks the government from suppressing speech.

He doesn’t call for that to be changed. He certainly doesn’t (as some of the folks above claim) call for “abolishing” the First Amendment or for censorship. One of the screenshots above from one of Elon’s favorite Twitter trolls falsely quotes Kerry as saying that the First Amendment “stands as a major roadblock for us right now,” which is not what he said at all. That’s just false.

Since the question itself was regarding disinformation around climate change, he does say that the best way to deal with climate change is to “win the ground” and elect people who can “implement change.” But it’s clear that he’s talking about implementing change regarding the climate, not about changing the First Amendment.

Meanwhile, I’m pretty sure literally none of the people screaming about this have discussed Trump’s announced plans to jail people who criticize the Supreme Court (which is a legitimate First Amendment threat).

I wonder why?

Filed Under: 1st amendment, climate change, disinformation, free speech, john kerry, tim pool

Capacity Crunch Causes Musk’s Starlink To Sock Users With $100 ‘Congestion Charge’

from the please-pay-us-extra-for-no-reason dept

Tue, Oct 1st 2024 05:28am - Karl Bode

Analysts (and Musk himself) had been quietly noting for a while that Starlink satellite broadband service would consistently lack the capacity to be disruptive at any real scale. As it usually pertains to Musk products, that analysis was generally buried under product hype. A few years later, and Starlink users are facing obvious slowdowns and a steady parade of price hikes that show no signs of slowing down.

Facing these growing congestion issues, Starlink has now started socking users in some parts of the country a one-time $100 “congestion charge”:

“In areas with network congestion, there is an additional one-time charge to purchase Starlink Residential services,” a Starlink FAQ says. “This fee will only apply if you are purchasing or activating a new service plan. If you change your Service address or Service Plan at a later date, you may be charged the congestion fee.”

On the plus side, Starlink claims that it will also give some customers $100 refunds if they live in areas where there’s excess constellation capacity. But that’s something I’d need to see proven, given, well, it’s a Musk company, and Starlink’s customer service is basically nonexistent. Historically, they’ve been unable to even consistently reply to emails from users looking for refunds.

While low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellite is a significantly faster upgrade to traditional satellite broadband, the laws of physics remain intact. There are only so many satellites in the sky, and with Musk constantly and rapidly boosting the Starlink subscription base to boost revenues (Starlink just struck a deal with United to offer free WiFi, for example) you’re going to start seeing more and more network management restrictions you won’t see on fiber, or even traditional 5G cellular networks.

For a while Starlink flirted with usage caps, but correctly realized that such caps don’t actually do much to manage congestion (something we’ve had to point out repeatedly over the years). So they’ve generally shifted to either price hikes or network management tricks to try and ensure that users consistently see relatively decent performance.

But the more militaries, consumers, governments, airlines, and boat owners that sign up for service across a limited array of LEO satellites, the worse the problem will get, resulting in ongoing complaints about degraded Starlink network performance over the last several years. And the more problems, the more weird restrictions that reduce the utility of the connection.

It’s a major reason why the Biden FCC reversed the Trump FCC’s plan to give Musk a billion dollars to deliver satellite to some traffic medians and airport parking lots, instead prioritizing taxpayer funding toward more future-proof, and less capacity constrained, fiber deployment efforts.

Starlink is a great improvement for a niche segment of off-the-grid folks who have no other option. But at $120 a month (plus hardware costs) it’s not particularly affordable (the biggest current barrier to adoption), and even with a fully launched LEO satellite array, capacity will always be an issue. Starlink was never going to be something that truly scaled, but that gets lost in coverage that treats Starlink as if it’s single handedly revolutionizing telecom connectivity.

Filed Under: broadband, caps, congestion, high speed internet, leo, leo satellites, network management, satellite broadband, telecom
Companies: spacex, starlink

Sony Keeps Requiring PSN Account For Offline Games, Modders Mod It Out

from the in-mods-we-trust dept

There’s that well known adage that if you want to teach a child not to touch a hot stove, just let them touch it once and that will be all the teaching needed to have them never do so again. Whoever came up with that saying obviously has never met my children, for starters. And it appears that Sony just can’t help but continue to touch the stove.

Earlier this year we talked about Helldivers 2, a Sony title that went cross-platform. That part is all well and good. Less good was that well after the game became a hit, the developers announced that the game would be patched to require that anyone playing on their PC also sign up for a PlayStation Network account, or else the game would be unplayable. While the patch came from the developer, it was done so as a planned requirement by Sony. And it was Sony that eventually rescinded that requirement after the backlash over it was extensive.

Which makes it all the more strange that Sony then decided to do the PSN requirement thing again, this time for the PC port of God of War Ragnarok. This resulted in all kinds of backlash again over the requirement, as this is a single player offline game that required an online connection communicating with a PSN account or the game wouldn’t run. In other words: a game that has no online component and is a standalone PC port of a game was saddled with online and PSN requirements that aren’t needed and that nobody but Sony wanted.

Fortunately, an enterprising modder out there has already created a mod that removes the requirements.

The NoPSSDK mod, hosted on NexusMods, promises to “fully strip the PlayStation PC SDK runtime requirement for God of War Ragnarok.” The open source mod makes use of a simple Microsoft Detours library to get around the game’s calls to the PlayStation Network API without “touch[ing] or modify[ing] any original game code.”

The mod, which has already seen one update related to simulating offline mode, has been downloaded just under 2,000 times as of this writing. “I will try to maintain the tool even if something changes, but hopefully nothing crucial happens,” mod author iArtorias wrote in a NexusMods post.

If you’re about to go click on those links and get the mod yourself, don’t bother. The creator of the mod has already pulled it down out of fear of reprisal from Sony. And I don’t blame them. My first thought when I started looking into all of this was to wonder whether Sony would DMCA the mod over anti-circumvention concerns. It appears that it didn’t have to. Merely the fear it might do so was enough to get the mod creator to do the takedown themselves.

t was my personal decision to remove the mod since it has become way too popular and people started promoting it on Steam forums as well thus generating tons of attention.

“I just wanted to avoid the possible threats from the Sony side, even though the code has never touched any of their products in memory. You never know and it’s really a grey area to me.”

So, let’s summarize. While Sony was very upfront on the game’s store page that a PSN and internet connection would be required to run the game, the fact of the matter is that nobody except Sony wanted any of that. Then a modder came along that made the game operate in a way that the public actually did want, likely making that game more attractive for purchase to more people. Then that modder voluntarily took the thing that made people happy down out of fear of reprisal from the same Sony that was pissing people off.

Everything is bad about this. Sony’s anti-consumer behavior is bad. The chilling effect that previous enforcement has had on the modding community is bad. And the fact that buyers of this game are saddled with these requirements they don’t want is bad. And now the press’ coverage of this is bad for Sony.

Is having people get PSN accounts really beneficial enough to Sony to make up for this ongoing giant headache?

Filed Under: god of war ragnarok, mods, offline games, psn, video games
Companies: sony

America’s Mayor Earns Second Permanent Disbarment For Being An Election Conspiracy Grifter

from the enjoy-the-fleas,-bro dept

Well, I hope it was worth it, Rudy. You sold out completely, offering up every last bit of your integrity for the chance to push election conspiracy theories in court on behalf of a man who won’t even bother to look in your direction now that you’ve professionally disgraced yourself on his behalf.

No matter how this election goes, there’s sure to be more lawsuits filed by Trump. Hell, he filed several after the election that put him in office back in 2016. If he loses again, he’ll need another army of shameless lawyers to do his bidding in what will ultimately be failed attempts to reclaim the presidency.

Unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani — the self-proclaimed hero of 9/11 and self-titled “America’s Mayor” — you won’t be one of them. You may have done the ex-president’s dirty work but Trump only cares about wins, not about how much of his filth still clings to your body.

Rudy Giuliani, who already owes at least $148 million to Georgia election workers he defamed, and who can no longer hide behind belated bankruptcy filings to avoid this judgment, is now unable to perform his lawerly duties in the district where Donald Trump might need the most help if he (deservedly) loses the upcoming election.

What was once a temporary suspension of his DC law license is now permanent. And that has been affirmed by the DC Circuit Appeals Court in a one-page ruling [PDF] that says plenty without hardly saying anything at all.

The upshot of this ruling is that Giuliani is no longer welcome to practice law in the DC area, compounding his previous disbarment in his home state, New York. Here’s Josh Gerstein with more details for Politico.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani had his law license permanently revoked in the nation’s capital, following similar action by a New York court earlier this year over Giuliani’s role in former President Donald Trump’s attempt to undermine the results of the 2020 presidential election.

In a one-page order Thursday, the D.C. Court of Appeals did not directly address a bar committee’s recommendation in May that Giuliani be disbarred for pressing a legal challenge to the election results in Pennsylvania without factual support for the claims.

Instead, a three-judge panel of the D.C. court found that Giuliani failed to respond to an order requiring him to explain why he shouldn’t face “reciprocal” disbarment after a New York appeals court’s decision to strip him of his law license in that state.

You’re now officially useless, Rudy. Trump can’t use you even if he wanted to. And, as far as I can tell, he considers you to be just a failure — another in a long line of lawyers discarded because they couldn’t do the impossible, or refused to keep trying to do the impossible because self-proclaimed Best Business Guy Ever Donald Trump decided to stop paying them.

At least you won’t have to embarrass yourself for free, Rudy. Trump is no longer your boss. You’re no longer his subservient bootlicker. Or, at least, you could be if you’d recognize this judgment for what it is: an opportunity to walk away from an abusive employer. Without a law license, you can’t be asked to irritate courts with frivolous filings on behalf of the world’s sorest loser. Now, you can just recede quietly into the background noise of normal society, albeit with ~$148 million less left to spend on hair products, podcast tech, or Uber Black rides.

As much as it gives me pleasure to report this, there’s a unending supply of unserious people with law licenses willing to burden courts with outlandish election conspiracy theories for the sole purpose of electing the man who would be despot and/or trying to catch the most fleeting bit of recognition for their service to the cause. Rudy Giuliani just happens to be the flameout with the highest profile.

The garbage man with the largest cult of personality will always have someone willing to rush the litigation machine gun nests on his behalf. Until things finally settle down, the very least the rest of us can do is gloat over the corpses he leaves behind.

Filed Under: dc appeals court, defamation, disbarred, donald trump, election conspiracy, loser, rudy giuliani

Gavin Newsom Vetoes Terrible AI Bill 1047, But Brace For Something Worse

from the thank-you-next dept

I don’t think I’ve ever seen quite as much hype about a state bill as California’s SB 1047, a pretty terrible “AI Safety” bill. Its supporters were a really weird combination of AI doomers, AI haters (not the same as the doomers), technically illiterate concern trolls… and a few people with legitimate interests about how to properly regulate technology.

The problem was that the few folks who had legitimate concerns and legitimate interests were more than willing to hitch their wagon to a bunch of numbskulls.

On the flipside, there were plenty of critics to 1047, and not all of them were great either. Some critics had legitimate concerns about how 1047 could stifle open source AI in particular, effectively locking in a few AI giants, but there were also some folks who went a little overboard on how terrible 1047 would be as well.

Either way, it was a bad bill. While California Governor Gavin Newsom has no problems signing absolutely terrible AI bills, he balked on this one. Of course, he’s been signaling for months that this was what was going to happen. This is one of a few reasons we only wrote about 1047 once, even as it seemed to takeover the AI regulation media discussion. Since he always seemed likely to veto, why waste the energy?

On Sunday, he officially announced the veto and published a veto message, with an attempt to PR his way through the decision. Instead of just saying it was a bad bill, targeting the wrong things and written in a way that was not connected to the realities of how innovation works, he tried to still sound tough on AI. He said that effectively the bill was no good because it might make people think that other AI models not covered by the bill were safe:

By focusing only on the most expensive and large-scale models, SB 1047 establishes a regulatory framework that could give the public a false sense of security about controlling this fast-moving technology. Smaller, specialized models may emerge as equally or even more dangerous than the models targeted by SB 1047 – at the potential expense of curtailing the very innovation that fuels advancement in favor of the public good.

I… don’t think that was the main problem of the bill, dude.

Elsewhere, his argument did make more sense, noting that any regulatory regime right now must be adaptable. This technology is still quite new, and regulating out of a place of fear of the unknown is a terrible way to regulate. But that’s exactly what 1047 did. It assumed that fairy tales and moral panics were legitimate concerns about what AI tools could do… and also that there was some way to bureaucrat your way out of bad results.

Adaptability is critical as we race to regulate a technology still in its infancy. This will require a delicate balance. While well-intentioned, SB 1047 does not take into account whether an Al system is deployed in high-risk environments, involves critical decision-making or the use of sensitive data. Instead, the bill applies stringent standards to even the most basic functions – so long as a large system deploys it. I do not believe this is the best approach to protecting the public from real threats posed by the technology.

My key takeaway from watching the debate of 1047 and other AI bills play out over the last few months is that a lot of people feel that (1) social media is bad, and (2) they missed a chance to regulate it when they should have, and (3) they don’t want to do that with AI, and, therefore, (4) they need to overcorrect and aggressively regulate AI.

I think all four of those points are problematic and wrong. But we’re living in the age of a raging tech moral panic, mostly because other shit is going horribly wrong on a societal level. But no one wants to do the hard work of actually fixing that shit, because that’s hard and people are used to those problems. But tech is new and therefore, if we can just blame the tech and regulate the tech, surely we’ll do something good.

It is not serious lawmaking. It’s performative nonsense from unserious people.

But have no fear. As we’ve learned in the past, there will be a new version of 1047 next year (along with other terrible bills) and we’ll get to have this kind of fight all over again.

Filed Under: ai, ai regulations, ai safety, california, gavin newsom, sb 1047