Of course the French like protesting more than most others but any country is susceptible to this: if the majority feels like their standard of living is slipping, a lot of them will start to consider proteating and violence.
I assume this is because of Muse? A lot of businesses block bots which stops Muse from being able to buy from those websites on a user's behalf. It seems like that'd be good for the businesses too.
This makes the most sense. Meta can guarantee at least that cohort of sites will permit their agents to operate, and all they needed to do was publish a tos update. Some Meta PM is smiling today, in between bites of infant flesh.
iirc when I was dealing with reviewing traffic and AI scraping bots recently, I noticed something about Meta's: When a user links to a page, the bots that grab oembed data to generate the link preview are using the same User Agent string as the Meta AI crawlers that scrape content.
For context, oembed data about your page could be seen as information you're basically happy to share, so other sites can create things like previews.
That's not necessary, there are other companies that just use different UA strings for the different tasks. They appear to deliberately make it so that if you have nothing to do with Meta and block their content scrapers, you also break basic functionality for people who happen to share a link to your site in their products.
Yes there is. You own a more valuable asset, so now even if you want to keep it you could take out a loan against it for a greater amount than if it hadn't appreciated.
Your statement is based on assumptions that just don't hold for many people. First and foremost, you imply a subjective utility of receiving a loan. For many people, having loans - especially collateralized against your home - has negative utility, not positive. Case in point: someone who'd need to take our a loan to pay the property tax.
But even if you were right for the majority of home owners: feel free to tax collateralized homes as commercial property based on the volume of the mortgage. Case solved.
You mean take out a loan to pay for the increased taxes? The banks win with that one. Some people, especially as they age, are seeking out simplicity with their finances amongst everything else.
Yes, these are literally the guidelines provided by the DOL. And the government seems to want to punish companies for following the exact published guidelines.
Oh come on, if a company is placing job ads to comply with the letter of this law in 2026 they're 100% exploiting the process Vance outlines and would undoubtedly try to exploit whatever the replacement process was as well.
Correction: SCOTUS is not owned by any political party. Activists can claim whatever they want about the voting record of the justices, but SCOTUS is above petty politics.
The purpose of the system is what it does. At the very least 2 votes on the bench are default admin votes. It's not the activists who are claiming things. You can look up overall SCOTUS approval trendlines.
Are we referring to the same administration that is met with immediate resistance from an activist judiciary whenever it tries to do literally anything?
No, just selective enforcement and maybe sending a message that if you don't behave, the administration may look a bit harder into you than it normally would.
I don't have evidence, I am operating under the assumption that e.g. folks behind jobs.now [1] did their homework. This is also what the OP of this whole thread claimed. [2]
[1] https://www.jobs.now/blog/unveiling-the-truth-about-h-1b-vis... "The Jobs.Now team has reviewed job postings from dozens of top companies like Meta, Block, Doordash, and Netflix which require unusual application processes like emailing or paper-mailing the application to specialized addresses, or using unbranded separate websites for collecting applications for jobs." + search for occurrence of "Apple"
[2] "My understanding is that this is pretty much how everyone does it, no?"
No, it is meeting resistance from judges that follow the law. It is also meeting support from judges who dont care, including majority of supreme court.
reply