Ah but that's the genius of the scheme. Every single one of those providers will detect your secret ID and refuse the request. And sneak their own one in for good measure.
It is not illegal to build a service with the same functionality.
So you are going to have to prove their code is a copy of yours, not just a copy of the functionality.
In Google vs Oracle, APIs also aren’t necessarily copyright able:
“So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification of any methods used in the Java API. It does not matter that the declaration or method header lines are identical”
The example with the two light grey horizontal lines is apparently wrong, but I found it by far the easiest to visually compare bar heights, which is the entire point of the chart, no?
I think your point illustrates that optimizing data-ink ratio is not as simple as the concept of data-ink sounds, when it comes to best practices for data visualization design.
If you want to encourage people to compare bar heights, you can certainly leave the grey horizontal lines. But if you directly labeled the bars with values then you don't need to scan from the vertical axis across individual bars to do that processing in your head. And if you removed the vertical axis labels that don't represent values being charted while also sorting the categories by their value, you can further remove another step in the process.
The point is that you can try to optimize in either direction of the data-ink ratio, but you should be aiming to just blindly increase or decrease it. Often it ends up making very little difference to the actual ratio value (which relates more to information density), and you need other design techniques to improve clarity and reduce clutter.
But this does not help with the visual inspection of the difference.
If it was enough, we didn’t need the chart and could just publish the numbers instead.
The point of the graph is a visual inspection of the differences. I feel like adding the one thing actually showing this relative comparison is therefore almost mandatory
There was supposedly a "US intelligence report" which claimed that three workers at the lab went to a hospital for treatment for some kind of viral illness in November 2019, but it is not known what illness that was. According to journalists, within the US intelligence community opinions were mixed about possible viral origins, with some intelligence officials believing the lab had something to do with the origin of the virus while other intelligence officials considered that hypothesis implausible. There's not a lot of specific public detail about what information or analysis informed those opinions.
All sides of the question were heavily politicized. The Trump administration and the US GOP have heavily pushed a lab leak hypothesis and used it to argue against China and against scientists (e.g. turning Anthony Fauci into a bogeyman). On the other side, China has blocked investigations and tried to steer public statements by various organizations away from anything that would question their government's motives or competence.
• ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ The National Intelligence Council and four other IC agencies assess that the initial human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was caused by natural exposure to an infected animal that carried SARS-CoV-2 or a close progenitor, a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2.
• ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ The Department of Energy and the Federal Bureau of Investigation assess that a laboratory-associated incident was the most likely cause of the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2, although for different reasons.
• ⬛⬛ The Central Intelligence Agency and another agency remain unable to determine the precise origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, as both hypotheses rely on significant assumptions or face challenges with conflicting reporting.
• ⬛⬛ Almost all IC agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not genetically engineered. Most agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not laboratory-adapted; some are unable to make a determination. All IC agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not developed as a biological weapon.
[...]
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ Several WIV researchers were ill in Fall 2019 with symptoms; some of their symptoms were consistent with but not diagnostic of COVID-19. The IC continues to assess that this information neither supports nor refutes either hypothesis of the pandemic’s origins because the researchers’ symptoms could have been caused by a number of diseases and some of the symptoms were not consistent with COVID-19. [...]
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ While several WIV researchers fell mildly ill in Fall 2019, they experienced a range of symptoms consistent with colds or allergies with accompanying symptoms typically not associated with COVID-19, and some of them were confirmed to have been sick with other illnesses unrelated to COVID-19. While some of these researchers had historically conducted research into animal respiratory viruses, we are unable to confirm if any of them handled live viruses in the work they performed prior to falling ill.
China denies the claim that these lab workers were sick at all. Even if they're lying, there is no proof they fell sick with Covid-19 and there is strong evidence they did not. All workers at the lab were later tested for Sars-CoV-2 antibodies and came up negative. Unless that's also a lie.
The bioengineering origin is, according to the overwhelming consensus of virologists, not plausible scientifically. It also requires a large and airtight conspiracy involving a number of respected scientists. Conspiracy theories are possible, but never parsimonious.
If we're going in for conspiracies, you should consider that the US intelligence community has a proven track record of lying for political gain. The Iraq War was started by a conspiracy.
I feel like passion projects can be worth it. You’d want passion, and to attract people who want to work on cool stuff and do difficult or impossible things just because they’re hard or fun.
Let them do that without taxpayer money! If NASA announced, "We're looking for investors to revive our SR-71: for $10 million you get a sticker with your logo in the cockpit and for $50 million you can have a ride." I'm sure they'd have plenty of takers.
reply