Wait, they give Europol access if and only if a swiss judge order it. They protect your privacy but neither you or them are above the law.
Wait, they give Europol access if and only if a swiss judge order it. They protect your privacy but neither you or them are above the law.
They went for a retroactive pricing change.
Which in some countries could also be illegal.
Why pay someone $200k/yeae when someone will do the job for $80k/year?
Assuming the same job's quality, a possible answer is "because to live where your company is you need to be paid $200K/year"
This whole thread is a whole lot of hullabaloo about complaining about legality about the way YouTube is running ad block detection, and framing it as though it makes the entire concept of ad block detection illegal.
Nope, the point is that, at the moment, Google seems to look where it should not look to know if a user has an adblocker and they don't ask for permission.
Let put it in another way: Google need to have my permission to look into my device.
But it doesn’t stop Google from refusing to serve you video until you watch ads.
Which is fine as long as Google can decide that I am using an adblocker without violating any law, which is pretty hard.
Of course Google could decide that it is better to leave EU and it law that protect the users, but is it a smart move from a company point of view ?
Tell us the real reason for the push to be in the office or get the fuck out of my face.
A lot of middle managers than need to show that they are usefull and not a bottleneck or useless positions
Actually it coincided with IPX rating for smartphones. The last headphone jack smartphones did not have water resistance, but the newer models did. People voted for a more sealed phone with their wallets.
My rugged phone is IP68 but it has Usb C connector and SIM/SD tray, so adding a headphone jack while having an IPX rating seems not impossible.
Not a doctor here, but fulminant meningitis can kill a person in about 24/48 hours even if treated, for example.
The first rule of encryption is that the password need to be secret, not the algorithm. (not mine, but I cannot readily find the source, sorry :-( )
A truly good encryption algorithm is safe even if I give you the source code for it but not the password I used to encrypt the data.
Replying to you, but it is valid also for @porksoda@lemmy.world.
If you ask for permission to do certain works in your house, you present the project to your city council, or the required office, and if after a given time (depending on what what you want to do) they don't object then you have the permission. Before the introduction of the silent consent, you have no idea about how many time you need to wait before you get an answer and it was prone to corruption while now the "yes" is the default unless there are real problems. It is not a perfect solution, but it is way better than before.
Basically all the interactions with the authorities are on a silent consent base when the authority in question does not need to produce something to give back.
All the minor changes to the contract with banks, utility companies and so on: they propose the new terms and if you don't accept in a given time from the moment you read it you accept it. By law in the event I refuse the new terms, I don't end with the old ones but the contract end and in the case it has penalties for early terminations, these are nullified if the penalties are applied to the other side.
On the other hand, this way a company has a certain deadline after which the new terms come into effect and as a side bonus the fact that it has to handle only the exceptions (who don't accept) and not all the ones that are ok.
Wedding publications, since we have not the whole "if you disagree to this marriage talk now or shut up forever" part of the ceremony, to be sure that there is no hidden problems we put an announce in a designated public place (usually a notice board at the town hall and/or your church) for a given period of time, usually 2 or 3 weeks, and then if nobody object you can marry.
I agree that this is probably something old that were done back at the time but it work on the same principle. Of course now there are other ways to know if someone is already married (on the civil side) or is divorced (on the religious side) or there are some hindrances.
And before someone ask, we also have examples where this approach were shoot down: the last of these is when a big back decide to move part of their clients to a virtual back (a different branch of itself) and they were stopped on the basis that this change it too radical to be done this way (even if the notice was about 6 months). Other cases hit utilities companies which in some cases where forced by a judge to pay compensation to the customers because what they done was basically illegal and the silent consent where then void.
That is true in US. In EU litigations cost are way lower and a single person could sue, win and not be financially broken.
Problem is only that in any case what you pay for a lawyer is more than you win, so it make no sense to sue in any case.
Their privacy is non-existent while on duty.
True, but your privacy exists even in this case.
There is actually no reason for police radios to be encrypted.
Actually I can think of a couple of reasons.
One is that this way the parents of a violent crime or lethal incident victim can be informed about the condition before the press publish the news. Last year we had some cases here in Italy where the parents of people who passed away for some incident/crime discover it from the press even before the authority had time to inform them.
True, in this case is the press that is in the wrong, but they could do it because they had access to the communications.
Another is that maybe it is not a good idea to let criminals know what the police are doing to catch them.
BUT I understand your point given the news about US police I read around.
What I think about it is that if you think that all the US police officers are bad then I agree that the not having access to the radio communications can be a problem. The solution however is not to keep the communications open but to fix the US police.
Why not blame the companies ? After all they are the ones that are doing it, not the boomer politicians.
And in the long term they are the ones that risk to be "punished", just imagine people getting tired of this shit and starting to block them at a firewall level...
Why not ? Even Linux started as a personal fun project. Let's see where it will go
You can. After all the GDPR does not forbid you to not accept to talk to someone.
A penalty should be something you want to avoid. A 25 million (occasional) fine for Amazon is like asking me to pay a .25 (occasional) fine for, say, no parking. It has no deterrence.
On the other hand, a percentual on the profits is a lot more deterrent, expecially for a company. Maybe 25% is too much, I agree, but let's say a 2-5% of the profits is not that bad.
Note that a fine that is a percentual of your profits (or income) is far more balanced because it hurts the small and the big company the same way.
They are no longer idealised, and CEO’s have decided to take company failures out on employees instead of their inability to target long-term success.
It is not CEO's inability (or at least not always). You cannot think long term when the only thing that matter is the next quarter result.
The fact is these are high tech machines. To follow your example with the car, you don't need to replace the battery but an ECU, for which there are no available design and you have no idea how to build it.
Add to this that probably if you make a mistake in your try, you destroy the machine.
Basically what ASLM is saying is that they can brick the machine with a software update and even if not bricked the machine cannot run long without specialized maintenance and spare parts (that they obviously will not provide anymore). True, China can try to clone them, but even if/when understand how to make them, you then need to make them, a thing which seems out of question for now for China (else they already would have such machines).
You need to pay for services you use. I’m exhausted with online entitlement that it all should be free.
So, why Youtube Premium has ads ?
Damn, a security researcher discovered what was known from late 1990's/early 2000's: a link on a webpage could take you in a place that it is not the one the link say it will be.
Nope. Professionals have standards 😂
Seriously, Meta is for me in a very short list of companies where I would not work under any circustances, so the pay could be as good as you want but is a no.
If you don't care to login in two years, maybe the memories are not that irreplacable...
I would say that it is not the proper way even if you have not a family
I like the EUs tech laws but I don’t think they should rule that a computer can’t push ads (assuming the ads are not malicious)
EU techs law don't ban to push ads, they say that you cannot look into my device to check it I (could) see them without asking for my permission for something that you don't need to provide a service.
Proton Pass allow you to export your passwords in various formats (both plain and encrypted). That you are able to import somewhere else is not something Proton Pass can guarantee but you have your data.
I am using both of them without any problem.
The main advantage of Flatpaks (and things like AppImage) is that you have a single "executable" with everything you need and sometime that is useful even if the software is Opensource but the building dependencies are a nightmare. Subsurface (a dive log software) is an example.
If the AUR package is a simple build (or a binary which is a converted package) then go for it. If you need to start building a lot of additional package from AUR to meet the dependencie then I would suggest, in order, to look for the Flatpak (or AppImage) package or to install an helper to build the packages
As an almost FAANG sized company engineer, I stay because I have work to do.
Everyone has work to do.
If you stay once in a while it's ok, shit happen from time time but if you always (or most of the days) stay, then you and your company have a problem: bad management. And that is not solved with overtime.
Only problem is that this way you probably lose the most valuable people, which can easily find an alternative
I think you are seeing this as racism when it is just some old good skepticism about a country that is famous for faking everything.
Maybe they really done what they say, or maybe it is just some proof of concept that need to be ported, if possible, to a viable product stage or maybe it is just a fake, we will see.
Prepare to either ditch Youtube completely
Your terms are acceptable...
You can use whatever distro you want that you can install on it (btw it is a eeepc?), just avoid to install heavy programs and/or DE.
IIRC there should be a Debian derive distro for atoms, I used it on a eeepc, don't know of still a thing
The assumpion Google is doing is that people install AdBlockes because they want something free. They seems not to be able to understand that they simply gone too far.
Google had the problem that they must show a ever growing revenue and since they cannot add more eyeball (or data to harvest) they simply need to try to get more from what they had. So as you say, the problem is not the single Ad, or the data harvest or any other single thing they do.
The problem is the sum of all of the things they do. They show multiple Ads, harvest your data, make you pay and still harvest your data and show the Ads.
People simply started to think "since Google want to screw me, then why I should not try to screw them ?"
Use Piped I hear you cry. Great idea. But how long is that going to last? I am certain that youtube and their parent company are feverishly pushing their engineers to find ways through, around, over and under any tool that stops them making money.
It will became the usual armed race, until Google would make their services so disfunctional to even the common user that people will simply stop using them since the value they get from the service is not worth the trouble.
That assuming that in some places (the EU for example) Google would not be hit by some law that force them to stop what they are doing and force them to play by the rules everyone else need to follow.
I can only guess they wanted to punish the unionizers or just do a major layoff without calling it a layoff.
Maybe, but this way you have no control on who leave, which probably are the people you would like to keep since they are the most valuable people you have and being good they could find a job that accomodate their WFH request.
To be honest, a-holes are in every community. In about 30 years on internet I never find a community without some of them
repeatedly demonstrate that they are car companies and not tech companies because they keep making rookie errors when it comes to security.
Not that "real" tech companies have a better record when speaking about IT security, tbh...
Which is basically true for every brand, not only Tesla.
I think this is true in any civil country...
Fully remote is the way of the future, in tech anyway. Use the money you saved on not renting office space to fly teams to the same area for a week or so a few times a year, there’s definite value in meeting, working together in person and going out for a beer afterwards. For short stints.
Fully remote is one of the ways of the future. A more reasonable approch is a mixed way.
Yes, but even if the base model hardware is incapable of doing something, someone savvy enough could modify it.
Which negate the whole point of the discussion.
If someone can modify it, the same someone does not need it.
Or, maybe, people realized that there is no reason to get a new phone every year.