1,367 karma · joined October 8, 2016
Especially interested in systems scaling & IAM and also general interest in most of thing on backend side.
You can reach me via <username>@<username>.net
Now I'm not sure if you are allowed to re-enter after your interview before your case is decided/you get the visa but I would imagine so (if have valid visa), you would just need to exit again to get the visa later.
Now how heavy the discounts you can get I don't know.
For example they could require that they provided with those EOL patches/sources when game is released, require liability insurance in case of bankruptcy etc.
It's the same as GPL and similar licenses. If you don't want to publish your source that contains trade secrets then don't incorporate GPL licensed code.
There are also already various laws which compel certain types of speech. Consider things like nutrient labels or ingredient lists.
Then the game developer/publisher should choose to use another technology or be ready to replace that piece when game reaches EOL. If no game developer can use that technology, the vendor will end up loosing a lot of sales. They can then decide if more permissive license would make sense.
Not extremely common, but it does happen.
The only privacy-preserving (effective) age verification is asking user if they are over 18 and requiring that they answer truthfully under penalty of perjury. Then prosecute the kids who claim they are over 18. For reason or another no one seems to be pushing for that option.
My understanding is that entering without getting inspected is misdemeanor (or felony in some cases), but that's often not the case. Usually people just overstay and that's civil case. And because it's treated as a civil matter a lot constitutional protections do not apply (to clarify: some still do).
(copied from my earlier comment) I think it's very close to C-579/21 which was about audit logs. In that one CJEU ruled that audit logs are personal data of you and the person who performed the action. They did allow censoring the person's name in that case (and exact timestamp), but given that in this case LI is selling this information to same person then "protecting others" rings pretty hollow.
I think it's very close to C-579/21 which was about audit logs. In that one CJEU ruled that audit logs are personal data of you and the person who performed the action. They did allow censoring the person's name in that case (and exact timestamp), but given that in this case LI is selling this information to same person then "protecting others" rings pretty hollow.
According to https://www.didomi.io/blog/global-privacy-control-gpc-2026 it must also be honored in 11 other states but I'm not familiar enough with the specifics regarding those.
50(1) states that AI systems which interact directly with public must inform that they are interacting with AI system.
50(2) states that AI generated synthetic audio, image, video or text content must be marked as such. However this requirement applies to "providers" of AI systems. And according Article 1(3) that is:
> ‘provider’ means a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body that develops an AI system or a general-purpose AI model or that has an AI system or a general-purpose AI model developed and places it on the market or puts the AI system into service under its own name or trademark, whether for payment or free of charge;
So it sounds like it would apply to e.g. Anthropic via Claude Code, not to users of Claude Code.
It's also unclear if this would apply to the compiled output or not.
There are many laws in place in EU which forbids many kind of practices which infringe on privacy, but the issue is that governments don't really enforce them proactively. And in some cases where they are the ones breaking them (e.g. by enacting law that is not compatible with EU Charter or ECHR) it will take long time to get judgement which forbids the practice.
Often the path is that you complain to DPA, you appeal to court, you appeal to higher court, (repeat last step X times), during court appeals you may need to wait for CJEU ruling and finally you might be able to file appeal to ECtHR.
In one "recent" case from Finland the original DPA decision was issued in 8/2020. I'm not sure how long this exact case took, but there are some recent decisions which took 5 years to issue. It was appealed to administrative court and court made request to CJEU on 11/2021. CJEU gave ruling on 6/2023. Administrative court gave ruling on 12/2023. It was appealed and higher administrative court gave ruling on 6/2025.
So it could take 10 years to annul an illegal law or practice.
DPA won't punish you for not following EDPB's recommendations, they will punish you for breaking GDPR. You are free to ignore EDPB if you think your legal position is strong, but you carry the risk if you are wrong.
This becomes extremely relevant when you read it in the light of the C-422/24 decision. In that personal data collected via body worn cameras was determined to be "directly obtained". Paragraph 41 from the judgement:
> If it were accepted that Article 14 of the GDPR applies where personal data are collected by means of a body camera, the data subject would not receive any information at the time of collection, even though he or she is the source of those data, which would allow the controller not to provide information to that data subject immediately. Therefore, such an interpretation would carry the risk of the collection of personal data escaping the knowledge of the data subject and giving rise to hidden surveillance practices. Such a consequence would be incompatible with the objective, referred to in the preceding paragraph, of ensuring a high level of protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons.
Given this it's very unlikely that PI observing (especially if they record) could be considered to be Article 14 instead of Article 13 type of collection as it's exactly "hidden surveillance practice" that the Court warned about.
Member states do have a right to restrict the Article 13 disclosure obligations via Article 23 restriction, but that requires specific law in the member state & the law itself must fulfill the obligations that Article 23 requires. Article 23(2) essentially forbids leaving everything up to the controller.
And as far as PI in the US goes, actions between stalking and PI "for self" tend to be so similar that I wouldn't necessarily recommend anyone to try it.
Note that PIs are effectively illegal under GDPR by default. They would generally need to provide Article 13 notice, i.e. you would become aware of them unless they were just asking around without actually following you. Member states can make them legal though (via Article 23) and likely in many cases they have done so.
And Spain is not blocking access to Spain's citizens, it's blocking access people in Spain. These could be citizens of other EU members who need to access their government's website for reason or another (e.g. renewing passport) while they visit Spain or reside in Spain.
I don't think there is EU-level "regulation" in this specific thing. However there is something somewhat better: European Convention on Human Rights. It's just that challenging these kind of bans via that route is very slow (similar how slow it is to challenge the laws which go against the Constitution in the US via Supreme Court).
The GP essentially framed overprovisioned solar as solution to anyone who might rely on nuclear without taking in account realities in many countries.
During crisis nations are going to restrict exporting electricity and prioritizing their own residents. Electricity that is generated in Germany is not going to warm up Nordic countries if Germany doesn't let it.
Wires are also susceptible to sabotage, especially undersea ones (which are the current major connection points to Europe).
You sure overprovision factor of 200x is still cheaper? This is when looking at the peak generation. From what I understand solar has about 30-40% capacity factor in summer. Just to panels (I'm not sure about total cost of grid-scale solar) seem to be about $300k per rated 1MW or $750k per 1MW during peak. $150M per 1MW during December. OL3 cost about 11B € for 1.44GW (assuming 90% capacity factor) or 7M € per MW.
Unless there has been some huge overnight exchange rate change 7M € seems much cheaper than $150M. Latter of course would actually be much higher when you factor in rest of the equipment, labor etc. Some numbers I found say that it's probably 5x higher.
One relevant would be Yildirim v. Turkey where court ordered blocking access to all Google sites because there was one that where someone insulted the memory of Atatürk. This was due to request from Telecommunications Directorate. This then caused the appellant's website to get blocked as well.
Another one would be Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia.