• 0 Posts
  • 18 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle
  • ShortFuse@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlplease
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    No. Microsoft is not liable, at least when it applies to HIPAA.

    The HIPAA Rules apply to covered entities and business associates.

    Individuals, organizations, and agencies that meet the definition of a covered entity under HIPAA must comply with the Rules’ requirements to protect the privacy and security of health information and must provide individuals with certain rights with respect to their health information. If a covered entity engages a business associate to help it carry out its health care activities and functions, the covered entity must have a written business associate contract or other arrangement with the business associate that establishes specifically what the business associate has been engaged to do and requires the business associate to comply with the Rules’ requirements to protect the privacy and security of protected health information. In addition to these contractual obligations, business associates are directly liable for compliance with certain provisions of the HIPAA Rules.

    If an entity does not meet the definition of a covered entity or business associate, it does not have to comply with the HIPAA Rules. See definitions of “business associate” and “covered entity” at 45 CFR 160.103.

    https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/covered-entities/index.html


  • ShortFuse@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlplease
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    HIPAA doesn’t even require encryption. It’s considered “addressable”. They just require access be “closed”. You can be HIPAA compliant with just Windows login, event viewer, and notepad.

    (Also HIPAA applies to healthcare providers. Adobe doesn’t need to follow HIPAA data protection, though they probably do because it’s so lax, just because you uploaded a PDF of a medical bill to their cloud.)


  • Burn-in is a misnomer.

    OLEDs don’t burn their image into anything. CRTs used to burn in right onto the screen making it impossible to fix without physically changing the “glass” (really the phosphor screen).

    What happens is the OLED burns out unevenly, causing some areas to be weaker than others. That clearly shows when you try to show all the colors (white) because some areas can no longer get as bright as their neighboring areas. It is reminiscent of CRT burn-in. LCDs just have one big backlight (or multiple if they have zones) so unevenness from burnout in LCDs is rarely seen, though still a thing.

    So, OLED manufacturers do things to avoid areas from burning out from staying on for too long like pixel shifting, reducing refresh rate, or dimming areas that don’t change for a long time (like logos).

    There is a secondary issue that looks like burn-in which is the panel’s ability to detect how long a pixel has been lit. If it can’t detect properly, then it will not give an even image. This is corrected every once in a while with “compensation cycles” but some panels are notorious for not doing them (Samsung), but once you do, it removes most commonly seen “burn-in”.

    You’d have to really, really leave the same image on your screen for months for it to have any noticeable in real world usage, at least with modern OLED TVs. You would normally worry more about the panel dimming too much over a long period of time, but I don’t believe lifetime is any worse than standard LCD.

    TL;DR: Watch RTings explain it



  • There is no section 15 or 16 in GPLv3, but I did find section 7 saying:

    Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; or

    But that’s an optional thing that you must add onto the GPLv3 license. I’ll have to keep that in mind for the future.

    That would explain why what I’ve read mentioned it’s not guaranteed in GPLv3 (when comparing to MIT). I’ll have to figure out what that notice would look like.



  • I don’t care if people make money to use my code. I just want my name attached to it somehow, even if you make it closed sourced which is MIT and OpenBSD. I hope you do use my code and even if you heavily reference it to make something new, carry that forward so more can learn and benefit.

    I also don’t understand “better for the end user” arguments either. I have a library that people want to be included in another project, but that project is GPL. They won’t merge my code unless I change my code to be GPL. So everyone who wants them merged is out of luck. I can’t merge their code either with mine. What is supposed to happen is I freely give up my name to the code and restrict it to only being GPL and for GPL projects. Essentially, assimilate and join with the Borg. No, thanks.

    And while that’s from my experience, I’ve also seen good projects get traction, have excitement over it, and fall off the earth because they end up making it GPL. Everyone interested in adopting it, personal or business, just disappear. Then something with less restrictions comes along and gets adopted.

    End-users move to what’s better for them, and if you have a library that is only for GPL, you can end up limiting your options with a wasteful purity test. If you want it to be free you’d give freely with no restrictions. And if you think, “You can contact me to discuss licensing” that doesn’t happen. It’s still a restriction and almost nobody actually bothers.



  • Recently, Mr. Lawrence said, customers have been snapping up used Teslas for a little over $20,000, after applying a $4,000 federal tax credit.

    3rd sentence?

    I’ll share the rest because the paywall:

    Carmakers including Tesla, Ford, General Motors and Stellantis, the owner of Jeep, have announced plans for electric vehicles that would sell new for as little as $25,000.

    More than half of the used electric vehicles on the market sell for less than $30,000, according to Recurrent, a research firm that focuses on the used E.V. market.