There’s always more to the story than what a news article and lawsuit will give, so I think it’s best to keep that in mind with this post.

I maintain that the parents should perhaps have been more perceptive and involved with this kid’s life, and ensuring this kid felt safe to come to them in times of need. The article mentions that the kid was already seeing a therapist, so I think it’s safe to say there were some signs.

However, holy absolute shit, the model fucked up bad here and it’s practically mirroring a predator here, isolating this kid further from getting help. There absolutely needs to be hard coded safeguards in place to prevent this kind of ideation even beginning. I would consider it negligent that any safeguards they had failed outright in this scenario.

Total opposite of autocorrect, I disabled mine because it was pissing me off, proceeded to ask a friend for a screenshit instead of a screenshot.

You misinterpreted what I said in that initial comment, asked if I was hallucinating, and when I clarified this misinterpretation, you proceeded to skip over anything I had said beyond the first link.

You are not giving any valid counter arguments to what I said in my original comment (in fact detracting from the original point of this whole thread by speculating you hurt my feelings?), this is why I believe you are acting in bad faith.

It’s clear you’re acting in bad faith at this point - you’ve completely skipped over anything else I said in my original comment.

The first link is evidence that video codecs cost money and, as per that source:

Most video codecs such as H.264, H265/HEVC, MPEG-2, MPEG-4… requires the manufacturer to pay a license fee. The fees are then added to the final product, but the actual codec fees are usually unknown to the end user.

This was in response to the earlier discussion about third party libraries costing money.

Here you go https://www.cnx-software.com/2017/10/30/h-265-hevc-license-pricing-updated-for-low-cost-devices/

The license to use macOS is not free. You must run it on a Macintosh computer and, keeping in terms of the license, cannot be run on non-Macintosh hardware. You must therefore purchase a Macintosh computer to use macOS. See Page 2, Section 2 of the Software License Agreement.

You keep repeating this argument of “show me where I can possibly pay for it” presumably because you know that it is not for sale and this is common knowledge.

What is being omitted here is that because anyone has the ability to put a PC of their own components together, Microsoft has two roads for these people: give Windows away where Microsoft sees none of that money back, or sell you a license to use Windows - they choose the second option. This is why you can buy a license for Windows. If you could only use prebuilt machines and were unable to make your own PC, the license cost would be passed onto the manufacturer and thus amortised in the final sale price, and you would also not have the ability to purchase a Windows license directly

Apple doesn’t need to do these extra steps because they are both the software vendor and manufacturer, thus the development costs associated in macOS is also amortised in the final sale price.

Please stop defending a trillion dollar corporation over specific pedantics and omissions. macOS is complementary software, it is not free.