Canva generates billions in annual revenue, it's not unbelievable

> video game discs still have had protection under the first-sale doctrine

Not true unfortunately. See: Vernor v. Autodesk; which was first ruled in favor of first-sale doctrine but later reversed by a federal court. There haven't been cases for video game discs specifically but I don't see a reason who it wouldn't be the same as this software, since they also explicitly mention you're being sold a license, not ownership.

The simple answer is due to popular demand. I remember when people were doom-posting about how chat GPT was making google obsolete before Google introduced AI summaries, and no one has been saying that after Google introduced it.

There's an entirely valid concern about losing traffic to a competitor, but that doesn't make it logical to drop the old product some people still clearly prefer.

Like many companies, they seem strangely determined to force AI on customers, even if it costs them money.

That's not a hard question to answer.

The five Supreme Court Justices who voted in favor of Citizens United and McCutcheon were all appointed by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Had either of those two not won the presidency, Citizens United and McCutcheon would have lost their cases against the FEC.

People can still vote for representatives who want to pass legislation to undo those cases through congress. There's nothing that's stopping people from voting in representatives who are in favor of this (yet).

Pardons only stop the federal government from prosecuting someone, the states would still go after those individuals

And in theory a future administration could do something like threaten to withhold funding to states that don’t prosecute.

Don’t worry, Trump 47 already thought of this, specifically threatening a state until the governor pardoned someone.

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/trump-threatened...

Yep exactly, goes both ways.

> 'screenshotting' is done by the operating system, and exposing ways to allow apps to know that they were 'in' the screenshot plus expose some metadata of their choosing sounds like a privacy nightmare

The apps don't have to know a screenshot was taken for this feature to exist; they could write into a passive "in case a screenshot is taken, use this as metadata" object data field that the OS uses when the user takes a screenshot

I don't think he was trying to justify or excuse his way out of his bad qualities in the second part; It felt more like he was pinpointing the reason. I'd say it's okay for people to give reasons for bad actions as long as they they still admit to wrongdoing and don't use that reason as an excuse for it being okay.

Indeed. It wasn't justification any more than Root Cause Analysis is making excuses for a systems failure.