shortsunblack

Anthropic has no authority to do as such. Users and third apps are protected by interoperability exceptions found in copyright case law.

Trying to prevent competitors from interoperating with the service also may be construed as anticompetitive behaviour.

The implementation details of an authentication process do not beget legal privileges to be a monopolist. What an absurd thought.

Open source community detests dilettante attempts at rent seeking by building mediocre wrappers over commodity software.

Docker did not invent Linux containers. They did not invent namespaces or chroots.

You'll be hard pressed to name the things they did invent and those things have long ago left Docker to hang dry (OCI imagespec).

OrbStack is built by a single person and it provides an objectively better experience than Docker Desktop, built presumably by dozens of full time engineers.

People detest incompetence and rent seeking. That they do.

The lack of important contributions of Docker can be best summarized by all the alternatives that popped up in no time. With Kubernetes now defaulting to CRI-O, modern container stack has precisely zero Dockerisms.

OpenCode is doing nothing wrong and adversarial interoperability is the cornerstone of hacker ethos.

As such, the sentiment in this thread is chilling.

Yes. HMAC extension allows for this use case.

Android to this day does not support CTAP 2.1, hence it does not support hardware-bound passkeys with PIN via NFC as transport. You can only do PIN via USB.

Google does not care about FIDO or standards compliance. They care about vendor lock-in their proprietary passkey offerings allow.

KVM was made because Citrix made moves against Xen that spooked Linux community, hence KVM. Then Red Hat ran with it and based its virtualization platform on it.

Citrix involvement has subsided in meantime and the ecosystem is much healthier (governance is actually under Linux Foundation), but the damage was done.

Xen to this day lacks in features, also.

The legal obligation has to come from relevant member state or EU law. Not third party countries' laws.

This at best is force majeure that prohibits OpenAI with satisfying its contractual obligations that are there to comply with EU law. But contractual obligations are not the only control organizations have to ensure compliance with EU law, so this is not a defense.

OpenAI is breaching relevant laws that regulate data protection. Being compelled by a foreign power, for instance, are not grounds for data processing under GDPR.

OpenAI has not started to "be incompliant" with GDPR with this order, yes. More like OpenAI was always incompliant because it does not have relevant controls installed that mitigates extraterritorial tendencies of US law.

Regardless of legality of retention this order brings, them not notifying their users (the court did not compel them to hide this from their users (no gag order is in place) about this material change of data processing, could be constituted as breach of various consumer protection laws, misrepresentation, unfair dealing, false advertising and related.

The order mandates retention of all user data, even of non-Americans. This is a massive extraterritorial overreach and a highlight of how US law has zero regard to data protection as a fundamental human right. As if there were not enough concerns about US cloud providers already.

And United States still has regulations. Chevron doctrine is not a thing in Europe and European institutions do not get captured by NIMBYs when industry wants to build a railroad, a house or an apartment complex. There are no hundreds of governmental organizations demanding you impact assessments and environmental studies.

For crying out loud, as an American you cannot work on your own house, since a lot of labour is licensed (electrical work, etc) and taped in red.

The regulation Americans talk of in disparaging way is always the regulation that shifts and allows consumer/user surplus.

Cloud init/Cloud config is a standard way to provision Linux hosts. It is slowly being outcompeted by Ignition and the friends, though.

EU law largely does not regulate national security matters of the states. Though that justification is limited per international law (such as ECHR, which is the basis of many anti-government surveillance rulings by CJEU). All European Union members are part of ECHR because that is a pre-requisite for EU membership.

But ECHR is not part of EU law, especially it is not binding on the European Commission (in the context of it being a federal or seemingly federal political executive). This creates a catch-22 where member states might be violating ECHR but are mandated by EU law, though this is a very fringe consequence arising out of legal fiction and failed plans to federalize EU. Most recently, this legal fiction has become relevant in Chat Control discourse.

Great Britain and Poland have explicit opt-outs out of some European law.