Un autre argumentaire en faveur de la voiture électrique

LinkedIn scans for over 200 products that directly compete with its own sales tools, including Apollo, Lusha, and ZoomInfo. Because LinkedIn knows each user’s employer, it can map which companies use which competitor products. It is extracting the customer lists of thousands of software companies from their users’ browsers without anyone’s knowledge.

And more things:

• Linkedin published one API to the European Commission as compliance. These APIs handle approximately 0.07 calls per second. Meanwhile, another internal API called Voyager handles 163 000 calls per second. In Microsoft’s 249-page compliance report to the EU, the word “API” appears 533 times. “Voyager” appears zero times.
• At the same time, LinkedIn expanded its surveillance of the exact tools the regulation was designed to protect. The scan list grew from roughly 461 products in 2024 to over 6,000 by February 2026. The EU told LinkedIn to let third-party tools in. LinkedIn built a surveillance system to find and punish every user of those tools.
• LinkedIn loads an invisible tracking element from HUMAN Security (formerly PerimeterX), an American-Israeli cybersecurity firm, zero pixels wide, hidden off-screen, that sets cookies on your browser without your knowledge. A separate fingerprinting script runs from LinkedIn’s own servers. A third script from Google executes silently on every page load. All of it encrypted. None of it disclosed.

wtf

I first asked how we should think about a mature standard like H.264 in 2026, where many but not all patents have expired. "Maturity changes the economic context, not the legal framework," he said. "The analysis shifts from an emerging innovation platform to a legacy but embedded infrastructure. That shift can affect valuation, but it does not nullify licensing obligations." Courts evaluating FRAND rates still look to comparable licenses and consider the composition, strength, and remaining life of the patents still in force.

It's possible in theory to use the free patents for x264, but it requires in practice a detailed claim-by-claim analysis of the relevant patents and the specific implementation. . Patent claims do not necessarily map neatly to profile labels, so determining whether a subset is truly non-infringing typically requires careful legal and technical analysis.

The baseline / main profiles is however OK and free to use, but the analysis is still required, because patent rights are strictly territorial. The infringement analysis typically turns on three factors: where encoding occurs, where content is transmitted from and where it is received or used.

The FAQ is also very interesting to learn about patents and software cases.

Le marché se révèle être principalement spéculatif. « Il y avait une décorrélation totale entre les valorisations atteintes et la proposition de valeur de long terme de la technologie. Les cas d'usage n'étaient pas assez mûrs par rapport à l'engouement que ça a pris », insiste Gauthier Zuppinger.

« Pour qu'une technologie s'impose, soit elle fait quelque chose de très différent, soit elle fait la même chose beaucoup moins cher. Les NFT n'ont réussi ni l'un ni l'autre », estime Cyril Bertrand. Le nerf de la guerre, insiste-t-il, c'est le coût. « Créer un NFT coûtait plusieurs dizaines d'euros », rappelle-t-il, là où une base de données classique fait le travail pour une fraction de centime.

Declare identity to be used by other tools, so the information declaration process can be automated.
A bit sad that AI is the main branding of it.

Export to VCF is added: https://hachyderm.io/@ducks/116324991938693684

The related blog post https://jakegoldsborough.com/blog/2026/whoami-spec-declarative-identity/

The vast majority wants to replace US software with europeanuropean alternatives. A majority of the majority thinks it's unrealistic.