I just wish to anyone who is against this policy to be forced to review a paper that turns out to be unedited AI slop. Reviewers are experts volunteers who do it for free. It is incredibly frustrating to have spent 4 hours reading a paper where you try your best to make sense of what the authors are trying to prove just to realize that it is hallucinations.
The authors should value the time of the reviewers higher than their own time. So, if you include AI nonsense in your paper, it is insulting.
Unless you use a dock, where you plug your things in the dock. Then you would want the "good" one to be the one of the back so it looks more clean and also have easier access to the slow port in the rare case you want to plug something there instead of the fast dock.
At least we should both be happy that it exists, no matter where it is placed! This is a big improvement over the macbook 12 with just one port. This was too low even when using a dock.
My guess is that if you plug a fast medium on the slow USB port the OS will give you a pop up letting you know. I have seen something similar in windows 11.
The social stigma in Europe exists, because these drugs are in limited supply. So, if a person who does not really need them is using them, the people who actually need them to stay alive might have difficulty accessing them.
There are many reports that since around Christmas day, you can not do this any more on phones that support iOS 26. Updating to iOS 26 is the only option now.
These are not peer to peer connections. These people would send a single stream to twitch and then twitch, a known streaming service, would stream it to their viewers.
In theory someone might rent a server and do the streaming directly to his viewers, without using a known platform. This would be a legitimate false positive as you describe. But this would be so expensive I doubt anyone would do it when the alternative is a free platform with built in community and monetisation tools.
I think live video has a bit different pattern than video on demand.
But aside from it, it should be very obvious: A) you are notified by the intellectual property holders that somebody is streaming pirated content, B) a specific customer or set of customers, who are not a known streaming service, are serving tens or hundrends of IPs with video and C) these customers do not have much activity during other times.
I imagined a solution where authorities would notify the hosting company of the IPs that are streaming. It should be obvious for the hosting company which customer is using these IPs for streaming illegal content just by studying the traffic pattern, no need to actually look inside the packets.
Then they can just ban this customer. That way the authorities will not have a reason to ban IP ranges affecting the other customers.