Yeah, the difference between subsets and equality seems to be lost for them.

That said, I'm not sure if you'd really want to work for Apple.

Babe, wake up! New political compass just dropped!

According to the scale, this isn't really Saddam Hussein but just his mini-me.

I once heard a cook say that cooks who use salt mills aren't cooks.

I'm really tempted to say the same thing about programmers that use llms to code.

It doesn't give anyone access to your system or forward information from your system to outsiders, so no.

Sorry to be that guy, but this sounds like a cybersecurity nightmare. While everybody was busy to come up with schemes that make absolutely sure that only trusted sources can update a system to avoid having malicious players push their code to users, this one just takes any rando's pile of whatever and injects it straight into the system's core? Like, that doesn't sound like a good idea.

How is Spotify supposed to "handle" anything here if the rights owner tells them that this is how it works? Like, not only didn't the first rights owner give them any means to stay updated with the rights, the new rights owner didn't notify them either that any rights were transferred to them before taking them to court. The only way to properly handle this would have been to tell them to get fucked, but that's not really an alternative if we're talking about the streaming rights for Eminem. This all seems like a setup to sue them... But who am I to tell? I'm just a jerk who read an article online. You know who should decide whether or not this was a scheme to drag Spotify to court? A judge.

Oh, wait, they did. Guess it's decided, then.

To get to it click the 3 lines or 'more', then find 'feeds' and select that

Oh, wow... I recently opened fb again and was just irritated that it didn't show any posts by my friends. Turns out they weren't inactive, fb just doesn't show them by default. What a dumb waste of a platform... I mean, what is it good for if not that? Why would I watch an endless stream of ads and clickbait?

That list issue you mentioned really confused me, so here's what's in the article about it:

The judge also noted that Spotify's agreement with Kobalt did not include a database of the songs it could, and could not, stream.

"Kobalt’s primary stated reason for that approach is that the catalogue of a large administrator like Kobalt would be routinely changing, rendering any list almost immediately out of date," she wrote.

So...

• It's not Spotify who's behaving weirdly here but the rights holder and
• the judge doesn't just seem to be okay with it, but this is mentioned as another thing that added to the impression that the rights holder made it deliberately hard for Spotify to properly determine if it had the rights to stream a song.

Here's my prognosis on how this will turn out...

System: 🚨

Humans: 🤷

Another point (which is a result of not refreshing the screen) which the article misses is power consumption. I can use my reader for several weeks without recharging.