I wonder what happens to all those devices that are brand new, but can’t be sold any longer due to having the lightning port.
The law was passed years ago and only came into effect now exactly so that Apple could sell the old stock. If they kept making new ones until the deadline, its not the laws fault. Also, they can be sold outside the EU.
If they believe it to be fraudulent, they have every right to disregard it.
Without taking on liability if they are wrong and it was not fraudulent?
Was there even a Grand Jury? Those are not required in most states, only on federal charges.
I mean, most websites will not respect the ban, so people will use those.
No, keeping up with new web standards, security, etc. is a full time job. It’s not something volunteers can keep up with. At that point, it may be better to just give up and build on top of Chromium.
In addition, without enough market share, websites will not test, let alone optimize for your browser. This is already causing issues for Firefox. Smaller browser engines stand no chance.
Idk about CA specifically. But even if none were available, it is still a term that is used for unlocking such powers on the federal level and in some states. So if CA does not have such powers, then just rename it I guess.
Except it often also unlocks executive powers, not just funds. So yes, there should be a level that allows unlocking funds without everyone having to check if democracy is being suspended.
Idk, on one hand I get what you mean. On the other hand, Firefox going away or being monetized in more aggressive ways will not be a good thing.
Honestly, I think I would prefer the lawsuit never happened and Google kept paying Firefox. Now, if Google loses, Firefox will likely head for enshitification. And if google wins, it sets terrible precedent :(
This is preparation for that in case google loses its appeal and is forbidden to pay Firefox to be the default.
no need for some big ol’ stupid government to guarantee your retirement or anything.
I still have the government guaranteed pension as well, not as if I could opt out even if I wanted to, which I don’t.
The concept of the day: Diversification!
This is one of the rare cases where I want to laugh at the silly US, but can’t because our “scial security” (we call it “retirement savings”) is being missapropriated for general funds as well :(
I just this year set up regular investment (part of my paycheck) into various funds to save for retirement privately.
If I am not mistaken, the President has a lot of authority over security clearances. So for the next 4 years, just like with many other things, it will depend on how a certain Orange feels that day.
Again, I explicitly stated I live in a country where we have a government run insurance company in addition to private ones. People can register with whichever they like and send to paperwork to their employer, who pays their insurance (or government if unemployed).
Of course, what they have to cover at minimum is also heavily regulated.
As for other types of companies and rules, that is a long and nuanced discussion that is off-topic here.
The police doesn’t have to act if a person drags another person into the precinct and murders them in front of all the cops according stupid US courts (Warren v. District of Columbia).
That’s why 2a and self-defense are such important rights. You want to be safe? Better take care of it yourself (or elect a 3rd party that will change the status quo, but fantasy solutions don’t count).
terribly run compared to US healthcare.
So you are afraid of it being too good? Sure, most countries are better than the US…
European countries
I am literally explaining how it works in some European countries.
deleted by creator
Usually, things handled by governments suck in orthogonal ways to private companies. Private companies suck due to greed. State owned stuff sucks due to incompetence.
Where I live, we have a state owned insurance company, but others are allowed to compete with it. Optimistically, they competing with each other making all of them better. Pessimistically, you choose the one that sucks least from your point of view. Either way, better than any proposed alternative.
Ok, cool. How should Steam prevent it?
Edit: Or more relevantly, how is having unmoderated usually unseen public spaces worse for this than having unmoderated private spaces? Is the issue only that steam does not hide what is happening unlike other websites?
Wait, so your point is that we don’t need to moderate DMs (and by proxy other spaces that users don’t see), just make them feel unwelcome in the public ones.
And earlier in the thread, when I ask where the extremist content is, I and Schadrach agreed it is mostly places people don’t see. Which you didn’t object to.
So isn’t it job well done, Steam is as is should be? Or what is the issue here?
Yeah, that is the point of the article. Not to point out the president-elect that was on the verge of bankruptcy for like 30 years is suddenly and mysteriously agreeing with everything the richest man in the world says.