That does not sound like a legal case??? Governments are allowed to enact laws that harm and impoverish their citizens. I don't see how going to court and just claiming "it's a bad idea" is going to accomplish anything.

Do they mean spent grain? So they propose to take the food out of my livestock's mouth, ship it across the country, feed it it bugs, fry up the bugs, ship the bugs back across the country, and feed the bugs to my livestock?

Its a study, assuming the journalist is being honest, I assume that the missing ratings are from people who decided not to take the study??? It would be a little strange for everyone to rate the experience perfectly, but I guess a bot can have some very elegant preprogrammed responses physiologically proven to fill the readers with whatever emotions they want.

Oh, I see what you are saying. thanks for the explanation.

The pixels are not tied to degrees, that would be more limited by the refresh rate.

As someone how used Fedora for my singular daily driver for over a year very recently, the project sure seem fundamentally corrupt and directionless.

It was extremely clear that after they became 1% better than other Linux competitors that quality and improvement were no longer important.
They literally went so far as to published a "Future of Fedora" blog post where improving fedora was not mentioned in any of the dozen topics. The main thing they seemed interested in spending money on was making Fedora better for the 2 blind users.

This is pretty standard. The rule is, if consumers might be confused. You can have an Apple Super Store, and an Apple Computer store and an Apple carpet store. As long as they don't go out of their way to appear like they are the same company they are all fine. But if you take apple's logo and throw it on a washing machine and call it the iWasher you can be sued.

"and buy" Steam works exactly like GOG or itch. You need to have the game downloaded and offline to be save from it being taken away from you.

Everyone including the devs seem to agree that the review was accurate at one point.

The people banned for liking the review seem to have been banned automatically for having liked a review that steam took down. But since they did this a few people are posting about having never heard of this game before getting banned for it. So their is some minor evidence that some minor hacked accounts were used for boosting. But it was clearly one of the most important reviews on that game. It is the sort of review to get attention and gather awards like that.

Even if some rival wasted money boosting a review, all the devs had to do was reply stating when and how the issues mentioned were fixed.

Well technically valve, since they are the "publisher" for 99% of all games have a vested interest in making sure its customers end up buying the games that will leave them with the best possible experience. They may also prefer that they buy games developed by Valve or alternatively with a large price to length ratio, but they don't care what games people purchase.

This does not render the review system pointless, it rendered it actively harmful and misleading. We can all agree that their are certain things you might be able to put in a text review that would get you in trouble (well arguably they are curated before being posted I believe, so technically by the time the public can see them, it is Valve who should be liable). But liking a review? The system should not even allow someone to be punished for liking a review. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Their is no text... When did that change, it says that the reviewer is unable to change the text of the review, did a moderator delete it or was this always the review?

First off, repeating a lie to everyone who asks does not equate to publishing, also chatGPT is a language model if you replaced Hoods name with Marry Poppins in the otherwise identical prompt it would probably say Marry Poppins was in jail for bribery.

Also, it is ChatGPT is not entirely deterministic as far as I have seen. I cannot get it to say Hood in in prison for bribery at all, what evidence do you have that everyone who asked about him was met with "convicted briber and felon"? Because clearly it is possible to get chatGPT to say just about anything if you try hard enough. But that is not the same thing as everyone asking received the same exact lie. I feel like that is unlikely based on the large variability that chatgtp shows.

chatGTP does not publish anything. Even the senior editors for the NYTs are allowed to tell lies in text messages to their friends.

Who is "running it"? The person who owns the hardware the server is running on, or the person using the machine by entering questions into a text box?