It depends on contract. Your interpretation matches use as “should”. But there’s also use as “claims x” or “is claimed or said to be” which the quote refers to.

Ich soll - I should or I am asked to. Es soll [sein] - it is supposed to be or it supposedly is.

There’s another alternative: not reporting it as fact, butbeing open about the degree of certainty and the methodology.

“Someone says”, “rumor”, and “uncertain automated translation” don’t make for very convincing sources or journalistic credibility, of course. But being open about context does moreso than hiding it.

CPU NPU requirements will mean longer support necessity for Windows 11.

If they go ahead with subscriptions, demand will certainly add additional demand for that. But I guess subscriptions would be to cover copilot cost. Given Microsoft’s interest in people upgrading to eventually reduce support surface, I have to assume it will be optional, for AI features. Following that reasoning, the NPU requirement may be optional too, only applicable to the AI features block.

But who knows, the whole thing is not driven by reasonable business decisions anyway.

Also, I had no idea there was a “gaming copilot”. Even after following links to the introduction news, I don’t get what it really does.

Yes, that’s what I read elsewhere. No guarantees in contract. So you can consider this to be bullshit or marketing. Even if it’s verbal agreements now, you can be sure they won’t matter.

There’s also precedent you can point to. Germany has implemented a reasonable system of digital identification and (seperable) condition confirmation (age gate).

“futurism has confirmed”. Later on the article: “reached out to three parties, no replies and no comment”.

Huh? So how did they confirm?

and “it was only once” is bullshit

They checked and then fired the author. I don’t see how this is “it was only once” implying nothing changed and it will happen again. Isn’t firing the author “holding journalism to a higher standard” already, which you ask for?

In my eyes some blame does lie with them. A systematic failure is a failure of many parts. An employee taking notice and following bad instructions is one of them.

I don’t know what information they had, but if they were at the point of intending to share, it seems like whistleblowing would have been the just and moral thing to do even if it means ignoring immediate authoritative structure.

I don’t see how it’s certain loss of job when you could whistleblow without revealing your identity.

Did they make contracts with them?

Well, there’s news about them being the replacement. So, no, they won’t.

I’m not too familiar with the specifics, but didn’t they put their foot down about just two safeguards? Sure, it’s having a spine, but I have to wonder if the line they draw isn’t a bit too far either way.

They’re not. Standard lying and propaganda that they do. You can’t trust in anything they say, in any reasoning they claim.

Germans with a website: well, it’s in clear text in the Impressum already, required by law

Those two safeguards they deny to remove must be quite the thing.

Pretty sure this is about desktop. Mobile doesn’t have the same kind of features, if at all. Does Mobile have anything else besides local translation?

Regarding security cameras, you can’t point your private security camera off your property. If you put it above your entrance, you can’t point it to record the entire street.

Afaik anyway.

Parking spaces or business must visibly disclose that there’s cameras, at least where they would not be generally expected. I’m not too sure about the specifics there though.

There’s a difference between taking a picture of a person and taking a picture of scenery or event with a person in it in Germany.

It’s a subtle but significant difference. And relevant when talking about do you have to expect for your picture to be taken. You may not care when your in the background or not identifiable but at the same time care when someone knows you and takes photography of you, or takes photos of you where you’re the main focus of the image.

There’s a distinction between whether they will be published or are for private use too.

I’m not the other commenter, and it’s not all encompassing, but I’ll link this one here for DE https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild_(Deutschland)

Proofreading with adjustments?