That sounds like something Jackass would do.

I would much rather pay for a missile that Ukraine fires against a Russian tank in Ukraine, than pay for a missile I have to fire against the Russian tank myself after it rolled through Ukraine and to my doorstep.

I would also much rather pay to educate the world (using Russia as an example) that the international community isn’t putting up with wars of aggression and won’t let you get away with them, than have the world thrown into disarray when the next country decides to disrupt global supply chains with their war of aggression.

Supporting Ukraine is a smart thing regardless of what you think of Ukraine. It’s also the morally right thing, but if you don’t care about that, egoism should drive you to the same decision.

Decent? I know I’ve heard about him before he decided to go to Russia to be arrested and slowly killed.

I still don’t understand why he committed suicide-by-Putin.

Did he really have more influence as a martyr in prison than a free man in exile?

I see two three pin 3.5mm stereo plugs (one of them color coded for the headphones and one for the mic), and zero 4-pin combo plugs?

How many of these mosques show secondary explosions after getting hit?

Weird. The article does have today’s date but only mentions the Nov 10 decision. I think maybe what happened today is the publication of the full text of the decision?

It’d be great if that was how it works, unfortunately it seems like the penalties are closer to once every 3-5 years than monthly, skewing the balance even further to “screw the law, just pay the fee”:(

I’d say that’s a huge problem actually.

For a normal company, abusing data is a small part of their business and profit is a few percent of revenue, so such a fine would be devastating.

For some tech companies, profit is in the double digit percent of revenue and half of it comes from breaking the law, so the 4% are a tax they can happily pay and still be more profitable than if they followed the law.

Same misleading nonsense. If you follow the links it becomes obvious that it’s the old news banning FB from using the data on the basis of contract and legitimate interest - which they’re avoiding by claiming “consent” after people choose that they’d rather not pay a triple-digit amount per year to use the site.

No, the article is just regurgitating old news and the old misleading claim (omitting the critical part that they’re only banned from using data “on the basis of contract and legitimate interest”).

This “news” is what made Facebook start with the “agree or pay” bullshit.

Sometimes they also came up with literal malware as DRM.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal

Enforcing DRM has a big downside: it paints a massive target on the DRM implementation, and it will likely end up getting broken.

I think there is a huge psychological difference between “spending on public good” and “here is some money”, and especially where the latter happens, it should be very clear that the money is coming from the state/nation, not the individual leading it.

That may be obvious to you, so the message doesn’t look like a problem, but I bet at least 1% of Americans think Trump personally gave them some of his personal cash out of generosity, effectively turning it into a bribe with public money. Which is exactly why Trump insisted that his name would be placed on the check. (The letter that came with it was surprisingly reasonable and clear, which is why I estimated 1% and not 5%).

Honestly, it’s kinda icky for a candidate to campaign for himself in conjunction with handing out public money, whether it’s done by a Republican (Trump with the relief checks) or a Democrat.

Imagine, 100 people trying to load a video from your single hard drive, it’s not fast enough for that.

YouTube 1080p is 8-10 Mbit/s according to what I could find. That’d be 100-125 MByte/s for 100 people. I think my SSD is more than fast enough for that.

Even better, a 1 Gbps connection is also (just) enough to actually upload the video to those 100 people.

And with 100+ people watching, P2P distribution should work really well too.

So, why was Boeing selling them until two of them crashed due to zero redundancy on a system capable of crashing the plane that was designed to add control inputs but was kept secret from pilots?

This one specific issue was addressed. Who knows which other compromises they had to make (and hide)…

They might be able to relay them in a way that the end to end encryption is actually handled on the phone and the relay only relays encrypted messages.

That would likely still give them a capability to MitM but it’s plausible that they couldn’t passively intercept the messages.

They’ll give them back just like the last time they asked you off your land…

You seem to be referring to something specific. Did Israelis kidnap children under the pretense of an evacuation, or are you “just” referring to the forced displacements that happened?