Are they? I watch YouTube on Firefox all the time, seems fine on my machine.
I think maybe 5+ years ago there were some performance issues caused by YT relying on features that were only implemented in Chrome, but I don’t recall having any issues wrt that for years.
I assume no one at this point
Unrelated 3rd party gets mad at 1st party for transaction with 2nd party. 4th party (neighbor of 2nd party) steals transacted item on behalf of 3rd party. Seems legit.
I figured US sanctions in this case would just limit which companies can interact with US based companies and within US borders, isn’t that how sanctions on Cuba work? Obviously the US just does what it wants but it’s not clear to me how this was legally justified, if at all.
I’m too lazy to look for any of their documentation about this, but it would be pretty bold to believe privacy or processing claims from OpenAI or similar AI orgs, given their history flouting copyright.
Silicon valley more generally just breaks laws and regulations to “disrupt”. Why wouldn’t an org like OpenAI at least leave a backdoor for themselves to process API requests down the road as a policy change? Not that they would need to, but it’s not uncommon for a co to leave an escape hatch in their policies.