There's no reason to believe they're any less subject to US jurisdiction than LetsEncrypt.

https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/MacBook+Pro+14-Inch+2021+USB-C+...

I've only changed a battery on that model, not the ports, so I haven't verified, but those steps are detailed enough and consistent enough with what I observed, that I believe them.

"The Neo has the same modular bits and bobs we’ve applauded in recent MacBook designs. The USB-C ports are modular, so a damaged charge port doesn’t turn into logic board work."

https://www.ifixit.com/News/116152/macbook-neo-is-the-most-r...

https://github.com/thedaviddias/Front-End-Checklist/blob/mai...

I've found that it's a thing that develops over time with experience, though. And I want people I'm training to develop that skill rather than farm it out to an LLM that never gets it right.

Unless I knew the maintainers personally, this would prevent most of my contributions, which are most often accepted. Maybe it's worth losing out on my small contributions to avoid slop. But things would absolutely be lost this way.

Sometimes it does that. And sometimes it lets you fuck things up at scale.

I like this idea, but the devil is in the details. "profit" is less defined than revenue. You have to specify your accounting principles. What counts as an expense that deducts from revenue to help define profit?

It's not impossible, but there's a lot more variance depending on locality, business structure, etc. than there is with just "revenue".

Of course, I suspect it all comes down to whether the entity offering the license is large enough and well-enough legally armed to force an audit of the organization taking the license. If they're not able to do that, it's all self-reporting anyway.

Why do you read that to mean just one is required?

Water is not wet. Water makes things wet. Perhaps the inaccuracy of that statement should be taken as a hint that the other statements that you hold on the same level are worthy of reconsideration.