Speculation I've seen is that whatever LLM they're reselling has this requirement itself and they need to pass it along.

I had expected this to be about their multi-user editing and chat features.

I've gotten in the habit of giving times in UTC explicitly when talking to people in other timezones. Even if I give a time in another specific timezone. (All of my computers get a world clock with a few locations and UTC)

A friend of mine works in a company with employees all over the world for 24hr coverage with handoff meetings where shifts overlap, seeing them do it for call times sold me on the idea.

It's still possible for the world to adopt something like Swatch Internet Time for coordinating across timezones/"without" timezones. Possible, but probably unlikely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time

Standard time in Ireland is UTC+1 (IST: Irish standard time). We have daylight saving time in the winter (now) where we subtract an hour and align with UTC+0. Only country in the world to do this, for historical reasons.

You can read about the reasoning/history in the information section of the tzdata database, or on wikipedia.

The counter-notice requires you to provide your details to the filer.

The process is often abused just to gain this information, with the complainant dropping the whole thing after receiving these details.

> The counter-notice requires you to provide your details to the filer.

I didn't have to do this when I received a bogus takedown notice for a YouTube video.

But I'm not in the US and I don't know if YouTube's process varies by jurisdiction.

Youtube's takedown process isn't actually a DMCA takedown.

Yes they are. There is case law about this.

You may be thinking of defamation or fraud, both of which require more than lying.

That URL gives me a 418 I'm a teapot error with no body. I'm guessing they don't like my VPN.

>If you need something that SFTP cannot do, then use tar on both sides.

Wouldn't tar do the exact same thing to that file's permissions?

Likely, but maintaining hard links is more of what I was thinking.

Floating 100% price increase, or did they lock that number in as a ceiling for some period of time?

What exactly was the problem you ran into? I've run binary through pipes just fine before.

your right it's not a problem. This has been implemented since v1 and I haven't really been focused to much this. Trying to decide if I should remove this step for future versions. It's a clear optimization but Im thinking it should at least be backwards compatible with old versions.

It's not really a latency saver but it definitely reduces load on the network.

Never heard the phrase "magical mesh" to describe certain types of p2p before.

Good name.