Hell the US came and joined Israel’s side in a war after the IDF sank the USS Liberty.

Microsoft are unlike Facebook and Google in that they make you pay for the software they use to steal your data.

My experience is limited, but not no experience. In any case, it’s not like Windows 10 will be immediately unusable when support ends.

What are your plans when end of life /support comes to Windows ten?

Switch to Linux and run virtual machines when I need to use Windows.

Right now I don’t quite have the drive to do it, but an end to support for Windows 10 would push me over the edge. I just can’t stand Windows 11, not even because of all the bullshit but just the way it mandates the UI structure - last time I tried it my dealbreaker was that you can’t just have it always display all taskbar icons, you have to manually force each one to show. If a new icon comes up, it will be hidden.

I’m sure I’ll be there with you soon enough.

/me Laughs in Windows 10.

Thanks, yet another reason why my example was a bit off hah.

If the US only awarded actual damages like most of the rest of the world, instead of inflated punitive damages, then this would pretty much be a non-issue. Rightsholders in the US see targeting copyright infringement as a source of income, not a necessary indemnity.

I said you came in to correct me but didn’t actually deliver any corrections. You just talked about the things you know.

I didn’t say the same thing you said, I provided the correction that you left out.

I mean, you are trying to be pedantic lol but it’s justified in this instance.

No one’s getting banned here lol. Also deaddit happened because of admin, lemmy still has every opportunity to pack up shop and create new communities (with blackjack and hookers).

Yeah pretty much.

I mean I’d just draw back to three things:

• Ben Gvir was closely involved in the Israeli far right group that assassinated the Israeli Prime Minister in the 90s.
• Netanyahu previously said that people should give Hamas money, as this would be the best way for Israel to take control of Gaza and the West Bank (and apparently now their eyes are on Lebanon next).
• For some reason Netanyahu left a skeleton crew on the border, sacrificing guards in the towers, relying on an early warning system with an obvious single point of failure (sole reliance on the cellphone network), on the 50th anniversary of the last Yom Kippur war. Anyone with half a brain would realise that such a calendar date is a time for heightened security, not relaxed. And this is the man who campaigned for office on his ability to provide security for Israel.

The Nazis didn’t have prisoner release on the negotiating table. I’m not saying Hamas’ terms were right, but the IDF hardly exhausted all options, or even most options, before they went “oh boy here I go killing again”.

Also, the IDF previously killed hostages that were topless waiving white, such is their bloodlust.

I dunno, allegedly people actually vote for a man named “Trump”.

We can also safely assume they had a very happy life until hammas decided to kidnap them on OCT 7.

Absolutely. However they were kept alive until recently. What happened recently? Israel stepped up its assault. This is a strong correlation.

Does the IDF expect Hamas to just hand over hostages when they come in? If Israel were sincere about their desire to rescue hostages they would be acting differently.

So we can reasonably assume they were alive until the IDF ramped things up in both Gaza and the West Bank.

Because of enshittification lol

It looks like you haven’t really digested anything of the conversation here before you came in to reply with corrections.

Not everywhere.

Previous rulings are a precedent in Common Law systems like the US, UK, Canada, or Australia.

Only Supreme Court rulings become a precedent in Civil Law systems like the EU, Russia,most of the rest of America.

Sure, but we’re talking about Brazil. You haven’t established whether Brazil is common or civil law. Also, we’re talking about a Supreme Court ruling.

Not all of the EU is civil law. Ireland and Cyprus both use common law systems.

While common law countries often have roots connected with the UK and are very similar, civil law countries are far more varied. Many civil law countries are distinctly different and arguably should be a separate class of legal structure - even ones with French roots (perhaps the most prominent civil law country).

Ultimately, though, the differences between civil and common law structures are almost entirely technical in nature. The end result is largely the same - in a common law country, case law can continue to be challenged until a Supreme Court ruling, and as such it isn’t really proper case law until such a ruling, just like in civil law countries.

https://guides.library.harvard.edu/law/brazil

Brazil is, in fact, a civil law country. However, they do follow case law from Supreme Court, which would make this ruling about requiring a representative valid case law. Which is what I said to OP.

The EU at its top level creates “Directives”

This is exactly what I said.

The EU made GDPR law (well, strictly speaking they made a directive, then member states make laws that must meet or exceed that directive)

The EU made a directive, this directive led to GDPR laws made by member states. However I was apparently mistaken, it wasn’t an EU Tribunal court case that led to cookie splash screens through case law, it was Recital 66 (lol Order 66), essentially a 2009 modification to the 2002 ePrivacy Directive, followed by roundtable discussions that heavily favoured the advertising industry over civil interest groups leading to its formal implementation into the directive in 2012.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/truth-behind-cookie-banners-alexander-hanff-cipp-e-cipt-fip-

To summarise:

• What I said at the start was right - Brazil’s Supreme Court ruling requiring social media companies to have representatives is valid case law.
• My example of cookie splash screens wasn’t ideal, but you did not give the right reasoning, or any reasoning - it was a poor analogy because it wasn’t a judge’s rulinig that modified the law but legal discussions that were prompted by public interest groups.

Like I say, it really feels like you didn’t read very far before you made your reply. Your comment reads more as a statement of tangentially related things you know with a thin veil disguising it as a correction. If you’d just made those statements without the veil, or if you’d followed through with the corrections and actually explained what was wrong, I don’t think I would have found your reply so objectionable (although I may also have woken up on the wrong side of the bed to your comment, sorry about that).

But then, I also wouldn’t have looked into the specifics of Brazilian law or the full origins of cookie splash screens, so thanks for the motivation lol.

Yes and no. It only really applies to Twitter/X and Twitter clones. You wouldn’t call a Facebook post a tweet, no matter how short, nor would you call a reddit or lemmy post/comment that.

And even then, Mastadon has its own term, toots, and BlueSky calls them skeets.

Until Twitter comes up with a new name in line with their new branding, I think the business should still be referred to as Twitter. But the business should go bankrupt before that happens, hopefully, the lenders need to call in their debts already.

No worries, your comment was at least a little more than just a hollow “source?”, as you stated what you were unsure about, so I gave an explanation of why the connection would be feasible.

It also isn’t really my job to prove my comment, this isn’t a place where people write academic papers that must be cited, it’s casual internet conversation. We’re all on an equal playing field. You have just as much of an obligation to disprove my comment as I have to prove it.

If I give detailed reasoning, that’s a form of evidence, and you should at least provide counter-reasoning instead of just disregarding it because I haven’t spoonfed you a source. Not that it seems like you completely disregarded it, but you did latch onto the fact that I didn’t do a search on your behalf.

Appologies if I’m still coming off as a little hostile, it isn’t personal, this is just something that really bugs me about online chat - when someone puts effort in and then others dismiss it without putting any effort in themselves.

The service has been tested in late 2023 and proven working, at least while the satellites are overhead (at the time there were fewer that had the capability). Starlink also have partnerships with various telecoms companies in countries over the world - the technology will essentially relay from ground based towers on their network to the user via the satellites. They also have no issue turning the system off when they need to as satellites pass over territories, as they have demonstrated over various warzones. However, such a facility could easily be configured to turn on, and even without an agreement from a telecoms company there’s no reason they couldn’t be run unauthorised, like a Stingray phone tracker. This is the issue I’m raising, one that I don’t think anyone else is really talking about yet.

Here’s an article from 2 days ago that shows the service is already operational for emergency calls in the US: https://www.econotimes.com/Starlinks-Direct-to-Cell-to-Launch-Free-Global-Emergency-Services-with-T-Mobile-1685521 That was the first result in the news banner in a search for “Starlink direct to cell”. Like I say, it really isn’t hard to find the information you’re looking for.