One of types of services Cloudflare provides goes by the name "Warp". Calling it a VPN is only wrong in ways that don't really matter — it has the effect of causing client traffic to appear to originate from a different IP address to the one they're notionally connected to the Internet via.
The problem with asking an LLM for "its reasoning" after the fact, is that any justification it might give is a post-hoc rationalisation rather than a pre-meditated reason.
Agreed, and you could get a completely unrelated LLM to generate a similar apology without any of the real context, it would make up reasoning just as effectively.
You probably don't want to be setting up Maps on either a touch screen or a with keys while driving. But navigation and media selection are the two functions I'm generally happy to interact with via voice.
I have a pre-facelift MB A-class, and I think it's the best car I've driven for controls. You don't have to touch the screen ever if you don't want to: there's a trackpad on the centre console that just works even (most of the time) with Android Auto (and the back/home/map/media/phone buttons will still save you even if Android Auto won't always let you move the cursor to the back arrow in YouTube Music). The steering wheel has two touch-sensitive buttons, one for each screen (duplicating the trackpad, which itself duplicates the media touchscreen). I can't even easily reach either screen when driving, so I don't.
Driving controls are all available on the stalks and wheel, volume is adjustable from the wheel or the centre console, all physical buttons, levers, or scroll inputs, unless you need to change a setting using the trackpad. The only thing that's missing is wheel control for skipping tracks :P.
And then in the facelift they replaced the buttons on the steering wheel with touch sensitive ones and just removed the touch pad and replaced it with nothing.
It's still useable and nice, but worse than the older model and there was no need to change anything.
Note that this isn't six weeks of reserve, it's an estimated six weeks of draw-down given what they're still receiving from other sources combined with (I suspect) both known fuel in transit and a reserve that wouldn't last nearly as long as six weeks if it were all they had.
If they can increase supply or reduce demand, the reserve will take longer to draw down.
It's the author's problem with the UK (and the UK's Online Safety Act, which establishes requirements on hosts that can't be avoided by merely not being in the UK), rather than the UK's problem with the author.
But as much as I dislike the OSA: if you're not subject to UK law, why do you (website author) care what our government thinks of your website? It's not like they can do anything to you.
> Consent must be "freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous."
and
> Apollo notifies them when their data is added to Apollo's database of business contact information and provides them with instructions on how to opt out.
Now, their claim appears to be that they're processing business contact data under the legal basis of "Legitimate Interests". But as much as I am a big fan of not doing things that require a legal basis of "Consent", I'm unconvinced that they ensure their customers are sticking as tightly to their basis as they ought to be if they wish to claim it.
In other words: yes, if you have a CRM in then you might derive legitimate interests in sharing with Apollo. But you need to make sure you actually have the right legal basis for putting customer details into your CRM, and your support database almost certainly does not hold appropriate data!
So ultimately I think this is on both Browserstack (for connecting and sharing data other than in accordance with a legal basis) and Apollo (for making it too easy for their customers to send them data without a sound legal basis and then for sharing that data without suitably validating they had the legal basis to).
Apollo's privacy centre makes all the right claims about how they comply with GDPR, but the OP's story demonstrates that they're not as scrupulous in their verification as they claim to be. And strictly, both should be reporting the breach and taking steps to ensure it doesn't recur.
There would have been a power imbalance at the point of signing. I can well imagine that the implications of that particular clause weren't apparent at the time.
As a society (more so here in the UK than in the US, I'll grant) we have laws governing what one party may demand of the other. They don't prevent a genuine meeting of the minds, because enforcement of a contract will only be an issue if at least one party doesn't follow through. But they do limit the ability of the company to impose sanctions beyond a point.
One limitation in the UK is that penalty clauses that are "private fines", like this one, must be based on the actual damage caused.
In this case, as in the non-compete case, I would say that if a company wants to continue to influence what someone does, they should continue to pay them.
reply