But it's something Google needs to be worried about. Imagine that you someone an AI to spread a lie about you, so they could then use this ruling to sue an AI company.
Could any of the AI companies even detect who was responsible ?
Could they prove it in court ?
They are unauthorised surveillance cameras. The software on them can't be trusted. The city should swiftly disable them at the hardware level*, then make Flock deal with removing whatever remains of them.
*This includes painting over the lens, thought I'd go for a more fun option of leaving the cameras inoperable.
Hopefully that means that the "settlement" isn't allowed to pay out anyone until a higher court kills it.
Giving time for all the other legal challenges against this "settlement" to secure their own injunctions.
There is one interesting detail about this "settlement":
https://www.npr.org/2026/05/19/g-s1-122938/irs-trump-settlement-tax-returns-audit
Kathleen Williams, the judge handling the lawsuit, dismissed the case on Monday and, in her filing, admonished the government agencies, notably the Justice Department, for failing to be transparent about the settlement.
She said no agency "submitted any settlement documents nor filed any documents ensuring that settlement was appropriate where there was an outstanding question as to whether an actual case or controversy existed."
Nothing about this alleged settlement was filed with the court. Just a motion to dismiss that the judge granted. The question of if there was an actual case remains open.
Hopefully this is enough for someone to challenge this grift.
That support assistant being referenced is a bot, however, not a human being behind a keyboard.
That doesn't matter. Bot or human, it's still an official communication from Sony and the source of the only statement Sony has made on this issue.
Sony is responsible for fixing any inaccuracies that might be present in that statement. Since they have refused to do so, I suggest treating it as accurate.
Trump didn't just show that he could have paid TSA from the start.
He has shown that the president has the power to keep the TSA paid in any future government shutdown. Hopefully the democrats remember it the next time there is a fight over the budget.
Though Facebook has the advantage of possibly still having people you want to talk to using it. So if you want to switch, you need to cut tie with them or pull them with you.
CBS News is much easier for viewers to replace.
If viewership is down, that means that viewers are going elsewhere. Somewhere that CBS can't control what they see.
It matters where they are going. If they are going to somewhere more to the right, that's a win for Trump. If they are going to somewhere left of where CBS News, that's a bit of a loss. Left of where CBS News used to be, it's a bigger loss of information control.
The difference is that RTX was always sold on the premise that the reduced framerate was a worthwhile cost for the benefits of the improved lighting and being way less work for devs than prior lighting methods. To the point that people put RTX into Doom just because they could.
While DLSS was always sold on the benefit being the improved framerate.
The fun detail I see from people who are claiming that DLSS5 produces more "realistic" graphics is that they refuse to even attempt to defend it putting lipstick on all the women.
DLSS before 5 was attempting to render the output at a higher framerate with minimal change from what rendering without it would produce.
DLSS 5 makes changes, like putting lipstick on all the women, and the demonstration needing dual 5090s makes it sound like it's going to come with a significant reduction in framerate.
It's like Nvidia has inverted every target they had for prior versions of DLSS and are surprised that people don't like it.
I'm going to make two predictions there.
The first is that there will be journalists who make corrections to their reporting that changes who won the bet. Some because they gave in to the threats, others because they found out that their initial story was actually wrong.
The threats from one side will stop and be replaced by similar threats from the other side of the wager.
The second is that there will be times when Polymarket pays out based on initial reporting. Then new information will arrive and change who should have been paid from that bet. Probably involving bets around when someone dies.
That mess will involve lawyers.
Anyone familiar with match fixing in sports and sports betting should be really worried about the equivalent happening when people are betting on wars.
But it's something Google needs to be worried about. Imagine that you someone an AI to spread a lie about you, so they could then use this ruling to sue an AI company. Could any of the AI companies even detect who was responsible ? Could they prove it in court ?
They are unauthorised surveillance cameras. The software on them can't be trusted. The city should swiftly disable them at the hardware level*, then make Flock deal with removing whatever remains of them. *This includes painting over the lens, thought I'd go for a more fun option of leaving the cameras inoperable.
Hopefully that means that the "settlement" isn't allowed to pay out anyone until a higher court kills it. Giving time for all the other legal challenges against this "settlement" to secure their own injunctions.
There is one interesting detail about this "settlement": https://www.npr.org/2026/05/19/g-s1-122938/irs-trump-settlement-tax-returns-audit
Nothing about this alleged settlement was filed with the court. Just a motion to dismiss that the judge granted. The question of if there was an actual case remains open. Hopefully this is enough for someone to challenge this grift.Quite a lot. But does any of it matter ?
It's interesting that there were enough people trying to keep a game after refunding it that Sony decided to take action.
Which could get interesting when the DOJ ignores the court order and obstruction of justice charges come into play.
He can't pardon state crimes.
Trump didn't just show that he could have paid TSA from the start. He has shown that the president has the power to keep the TSA paid in any future government shutdown. Hopefully the democrats remember it the next time there is a fight over the budget.
Though Facebook has the advantage of possibly still having people you want to talk to using it. So if you want to switch, you need to cut tie with them or pull them with you. CBS News is much easier for viewers to replace.
If viewership is down, that means that viewers are going elsewhere. Somewhere that CBS can't control what they see. It matters where they are going. If they are going to somewhere more to the right, that's a win for Trump. If they are going to somewhere left of where CBS News, that's a bit of a loss. Left of where CBS News used to be, it's a bigger loss of information control.
The difference is that RTX was always sold on the premise that the reduced framerate was a worthwhile cost for the benefits of the improved lighting and being way less work for devs than prior lighting methods. To the point that people put RTX into Doom just because they could. While DLSS was always sold on the benefit being the improved framerate.
Maybe. But remember that Nvidia thought that this version, running on dual 5090s, was far enough along to be worth showing off.
The fun detail I see from people who are claiming that DLSS5 produces more "realistic" graphics is that they refuse to even attempt to defend it putting lipstick on all the women.
DLSS before 5 was attempting to render the output at a higher framerate with minimal change from what rendering without it would produce. DLSS 5 makes changes, like putting lipstick on all the women, and the demonstration needing dual 5090s makes it sound like it's going to come with a significant reduction in framerate. It's like Nvidia has inverted every target they had for prior versions of DLSS and are surprised that people don't like it.
I'm going to make two predictions there. The first is that there will be journalists who make corrections to their reporting that changes who won the bet. Some because they gave in to the threats, others because they found out that their initial story was actually wrong. The threats from one side will stop and be replaced by similar threats from the other side of the wager. The second is that there will be times when Polymarket pays out based on initial reporting. Then new information will arrive and change who should have been paid from that bet. Probably involving bets around when someone dies. That mess will involve lawyers.
I imagine that they don't care. That they have structured their gambling so that they win on any outcomes.
Anyone familiar with match fixing in sports and sports betting should be really worried about the equivalent happening when people are betting on wars.