Bold of you to assume he started with actual data
Bold of you to assume he started with actual data
deleted by creator
Ah yes, it was all a false flag, instigated by the government to take away our freedoms, I get it
Ah yes, why are people so silly as to use Grub, the single most widely used bootloader in the Linux universe, we should blame that poor choice when they have problems with arch
Lol “Nobody cares about Snap vs Flatpak” says dude who cares about Wayland vs X
I mean we literally did that in the 1920s
So the idea is that because FTX and Yuga Labs were all mixed up in each other’s business, and because FTX was secretly the buyer of the Bored Apes, then functionally this was a giant wash trade, one step removed. A sham auction whose purpose was to blow up the price of NFTs, and Sotheby is supposed to be culpable because they participated in the sham and lent it legitimacy with their reputation.
That seems like a pretty legit complaint.
I mean, I have no sympathy for the people who got fucked buying NFTs but I have even less sympathy for the people who did the fucking, so absolutely let this lawsuit happen and let them burn.
Fuck all NFT people right in the earhole, but I think it’s reasonable to nail Sotheby’s to the wall for their part in this charade.
this has nothing even remotely to do with patents, fam
but it is indeed bullshit.
the purpose of a “trademark” is to prevent the public from being deceived about what they’re purchasing, so you can’t sell “Big Macs” on your own because the public might be deceived into thinking they were purchasing a product from McDonalds, which (I assume) has trademarked the use of “Big Mac” for fast food.
I HIGHLY doubt the Linux Foundation owns the trademark for “Segmentation Fault” with respect to random merch, so… yeah 100% bullshit
(The image does also say “Linux IP” in addition to “Linux Trademark” and I wonder what the hell that is supposed to mean, since “IP” covers a multitude of dissimilar things, maybe it’s just a vague handwavy assertion they make in order to make a takedown without particularly justifying it?)
Do you live in a country where the government would put a gun to YouTube’s head and say 'YOU HAVE TO KEEP BROADCASTING THIS MAN’S CHANNEL, PUT ADS ON IT, AND SHARE THE AD REVENUE WITH HIM, WHETHER YOU WANT TO OR NOT, UNTIL AND UNLESS HE IS CONVICTED OF A CRIME"?
That seems weird.