Definitely also a strong possibility. I wish I had paid more attention during the AWS one earlier to see what other things looked like on there at the time.
I think you're right. I think its more like you say - grid capacity that can be called upon as necessary. Which is often from generators but not necessarily.
The "interconnectors" are more evidence this isn't really about generators, but grid entry points. The interconnectors are connections to the French, Danish, etc. grids.
These are typically stations that are outside of London. If you reach the destination station, you'd probably need to appeal to the kindness of staff members who attend the ticket barrier (if there is one), who might ask someone to buy a ticket or pay a penalty fare. But it's functionally equivalent to traveling without a ticket at all.
You'd also have to pay a default charge for an incomplete journey on the PAYG ticket, but you could potentially appeal to have this reversed.
It's usually made pretty clear on train announcements that you're leaving the contactless PAYG fare zone.
Because they tell you before you get to the last station in the zone. You can get off, tap out & buy a ticket to wherever you’re going from that station.
Take my routine train home when worked in central London. It's an 1805 from Waterloo towards Weymouth and Poole, in the country's South West. Most people boarding the train at Waterloo are going to be on it for an hour or two, getting home - London's internal fares are obviously irrelevant. But, technically the train is stopping one more time inside London, and thus TfL's Oyster fares are valid for that one stop, at Clapham Junction although as timetabled this train isn't for Clapham Junction, you could leave there and your Oyster would work. This stop is for picking up passengers. Indeed sometimes I might catch my train there if circumstances made it impossible to be sure I'd reach Waterloo early enough.
So there's an announcement. Your Oyster (or contactless) is not valid for travel beyond London, and this train isn't even really for internal travel, but you can leave at Clapham Junction.
> Meta said it has cooperated with regulators and pointed to its announced plans to give Europeans the opportunity to consent to data collection and, later this month, to offer an ad-free subscription service in Europe that will cost 9.99 euros ($10.59) a month for access to all its products
> Tobias Judin, head of the international section at the Norwegian Data Protection Authority, said Meta's proposed steps likely won't meet European legal standards. For instance, he said, consent would have to be freely given, which wouldn't be the case if existing users had to choose between giving up their privacy rights or paying a financial penalty in the form of a subscription.
> For instance, he said, consent would have to be freely given, which wouldn't be the case if existing users had to choose between giving up their privacy rights or paying a financial penalty in the form of a subscription.
This is already present in EU. Spiegel.de and others are like that. Pay or be tracked.
> This is already present in EU. Spiegel.de and others are like that. Pay or be tracked.
And legal challenges to that are in the works. Some have even been partially upheld. “Pay or okay” done as a binary choice isn’t okay, like anything else, granular consent is important:
The problem in that case is how it's possible "not to track" somebody who pays for the service and accesses content via a paid account, and how it's possible to demonstrate to users how their data is handled. I guess only big companies that subject themselves to public oversight can really achieve it.
An alternative might be homomorphic encryption, which would already be doable with current technology for something like a newspaper.
this is similar to tiktok getting banned because the data doesnt reside in the US anymore, meanwhile the NSA has unrestricted access and data privacy doesn't apply to foreigners (we can snoop on anybody who's not a US citizen). honestly private data should be illegal, public behavioral data should be public, and censorship is always wrong
Ad-free does not promise nor even imply tracking-free.
In fact, it would still make sense to track ad-free users, if for no other reason than to better target ads to their family members, coworkers, and friends. They probably like what you like.
And "Bob's birthday is coming up, he would love a Barcelona team t-shirt" would be very convincing.
The suggestion might be that Trustcor received an internal build of the SDK because of their close links to the company. Perhaps the developer who worked on the mobile app also worked for the company behind the SDK?
Rachel’s suggestion in the thread is that the other examples of this SDK that have been observed obfuscated are much more recent, and that perhaps obfuscation was something the company has started doing more recently.
> Want to own the unique special edition sword with rare attributes in the Zelda-verse or the uber lazer in your favorite open world space game?
Isn't my favourite open world space game ultimately managed by a centralised developer, creating a centralised game; and recognition of my "ownership" only as meaningful as the developer happy for it to be?
Put it another way, what difference is there for me as a user compared to "owning" a ship in my open-world space game today?
The keys to your unique ship (possibly with randomly generated attributes) don't accrue in value the more its traded.
I see your point, but I don't think anyone getting into NFT gaming is going to care about the centralized nature of it. Save that talk for the currencies. Especially if the dev builds the game on top of a existing NFT engine that multiple games are built on, then they can't really "control" the market and are forced to focus on the creative and unique aspects of the generation of the NFT to the uniques in thier game and create some hype and artificial scarcity to bring in more players, rather then just spam everyone with the same ship that you can buy in game for 1,000,000 space sheckles. Even if the ship is unique in game asset, you can only trade it in game. What if I wanted to trade my ship for a uber character in some other world, and some other guy wants to get into the space game and has keys in the game I want to sell to me. Deals are made.
An NFT doesn't include the assets, it's just a receipt ID.
For a recent example, Riot has just released a bunch of tie-ins for with other games. Like the character Jinx is now in Fortnite. You could use an NFT that says this person owns the Riot character Jinx and thus the Fortnite developers could let you pick the Jinx skin in game.
Although a realistic example I think it would be stupid to do in practice because why would would Epic want to give away Jinx for free just because you bought it from Riot? Then there's a much smaller advantage of having the tie-in, sure you could get cross-play between Riot games players and Fortnite players but you also lose on a quick cash win of getting Riot fans to buy a Fortnite skin.
Every example of "well developers come to an agreement and.." has already bypassed the entire concept. Riot can just publish an API for Epic to consume and be done with it - less work then the legal contracts that need to be signed to cover everybody for the use of art and assets for "Jinx" by someone who was not the copyright owner.
You've given an example where by doing something more complicated an NFT could be involved, but no problem that an NFT is actually solving.
None of it requires an NFT, I mean nearly everything crypto related is "this doesn't require crypto but crypto is one way of doing it". At least with an NFT it'd be a bit standardized? I don't actually think NFTs are useful, that's just an example of what people mean when they say an NFT could be used in games. But then I was taking it to the realistic conclusion that it's just useless because there's no advantage to giving away free stuff between different games of different companies. Which only leaves shared stuff between the same company, like digital Amiibos, but then that's also just a centralized API replaced with crypto for no real reason.
Lets say you’re a Fortnite competitor. To lure people to your game you let them import their Fortnite weapons or clothes and convert them to your game equivalent.
It was, yes. The SDK for App Tracking permissions has been there since 14.0. The change in 14.5 is that using the new APIs (and getting user permission) is now mandatory.
If everyone answered their one letter I'm sure the census would be a lot cheaper, but I think most of the real cost comes from employing thousands of people who go around the country knocking on the doors of those who haven't responded yet.
