This was happening to me until I repatched and reinstalled the app. I didn’t change anything between installs so I’m not sure what happened.

The basis for the suit is in the title of the article. Most of these big suits against administrative agencies boil down to anticipation of speculative future injury as a result of agency action. This is part of the modern conservative playbook to destroy the administrative state by undermining one of the most longstanding precedents in administrative law, Chevron deference. The Supreme Court is already set to deliver an opinion which may water down or completely destroy Chevron deference in this cycle (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo). Settled law doesn’t matter when it’s convenient to a conservative majority.

If you’re in the Northern Hemisphere, I think something hearty like a braise would go nicely with the weather. I recently braided some short ribs in stout and some homemade beef stock and it turned out wonderfully. I had it with some simple roasted veg with balsamic condiment drizzled over and mashed potatoes, so that the reduced braising liquid could do double duty as a sort of gravy. If you’re in the Southern Hemisphere though, I think a fancy salad would be a good way to beat the heat.

I’ve had success with this recipe, which is in grams. I just made a baker’s % out of it and mostly use that now for flour tortillas since the recipe made more than I wanted.

Most recently, I used this flour tortilla recipe and was happy with the results. I found having a video helpful as another form of feedback to see if I was following the recipe correctly.

Anytime! I don’t respect her decision to advocate for Trump in any way, but she put herself in an extremely difficult situation. Not only are the facts extremely adverse to your side, you have to counsel such an unlikable, egotistical clown. She deserves so much of the criticism that she gets, even if only for being conceited enough to think she could come out of such a public trial without the sort of reputational harm she’s receiving.

You cannot blame a lawyer for allowing their client to testify, they literally have an ethical obligation to allow a client to testify if the client chooses to (ABA Model Rule 3.3(9) ). You can call her competency into question for other reasons, but she would absolutely be sanctioned if she didn’t allow him to testify.

Why would the clause be unenforceable? It doesn’t violate any of the general principles of contract law. If you intentionally contract around these terms that don’t violate any existing body of law and don’t run counter to public interest, a court would have no problem enforcing the terms of a contract. They probably wouldn’t sue you or me in our individual capacity if we circumvented. There’s a much greater chance of recovery if they go after a company which is pretty clearly using their service in a bad faith. If ByteDance wanted to use their LLM to train their own, they could’ve negotiated such a license.

Sorry for the late reply, but this doesn’t really seem like it’d come close to invoking any of the US’s neutered antitrust enforcement. Open AI doesn’t have a monopoly position to abuse, since there are other large firms offering LLMs that see reasonable amounts of usage. This clause amounts more to an effort to stop reverse engineering than stifle anyone trying to build an LLM.

I can’t speak for every jurisdiction, but I’d be hard pressed to see why it wouldn’t be legal in the US, especially in these circumstances. ByteDance is a massive legally sophisticated corporation, so they should’ve been expected to fully read and understand the terms and conditions before accepting them. They probably won’t bring a legal challenge, because they know they don’t have a particularly strong legal argument or a sympathetic angle to use.