input_sh

Paying for 1 is doing more than paying for 0.

It's not your responsibility to fund for every single one, just find the one you like the most and subscribe to that one.

Given the headline, they found out nothing about "the team".

The US stopped respecting its international commitments in Trump's first term when it single-handedly withdrew from the JCPOA (singed by way more countries than just the US) without a single valid reason to do so.

Since then, it flip-flopped on the Paris Agreement, single-handedly put tariffs on goods imported from literally every single country in the world, withdrew from WHO and so on and so on.

Not only does the US not respect the commitments it already agreed to, it hasn't done so for the past 10 or years.

My god, Switzerland is literally the least ethnically homogenous country on the continent (if we ignore tiny nations like Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Malta), with a third of its population being foreign-born, which is percentage-wise double that of the US.

Digital Services Act / Digital Markets Act (similar in spirit, but one targets online stores like Google Play, another one online services like Instagram more generally)

More specifically, both are already in effect, outlawing certain things, and designating certain companies as "digital gatekeepers" when they reach a certain threshold of users within the EU.

These regulations don't really specify what every gatekeeper needs to actually do (above the bare minimum), but say that once a company is designated as a gatekeeper, corrective action to prevent their monopolistic behaviour are going to be decided on a case-by-case basis. In practice this means that corrective actions can be something very significant (like iOS having to ask EU users to set a default browser during device setup instead of defaulting to Safari) or nothing, which is why this direct line of conversation shows spinelessness.

It's pretty much an equivalent of a judge having open discussions with a criminal about how the court should interpret the law to suit the criminal better.

Actually building something useful and fun and spending your time convincing investors to give you enough money to maybe turn it into a profitable business some day are not really complimentary personality traits.

Steve Wozniak alone could've maybe built Apple without Steve Jobs, but his time would be wasted by doing something he (presumably) didn't enjoy very much and it would've been a much bumpier road.

Arguably it's even worse when they try to give "unique" names to similar-in-spirit products.

I will never forgive them for all the hair pulling I had to do to try differentiating between Team Foundation Version Control, Team Foundation Server, Team Foundation Services, Visual Studio Team Services, Visual Studio Online, Azure DevOps Server, and Azure DevOps Services.

Astro would call that an island: https://docs.astro.build/en/concepts/islands/

I guess this is our answer to the question of why Cloudflare acquired it in the first place.

You and I are not a fucking judge, our opinions on this don't matter one bit. We might as well print it on a piece of paper and wipe our asses with it.

You seem like the type of person that will believe anything as long as someone cites a case without looking into it. Bartz v Anthropic only looked at books, and there was still a 1.5 billion settlement that Anthropic paid out because it got those books from LibGen / Anna's Archive, and the ruling also said that the data has to be acquired "legitimately".

Whether data acquired from a licence that specifically forbids building a derivative work without also releasing that derivative under the same licence counts as a legitimate data gathering operation is anyone's guess, as those specific circumstances are about as far from that prior case as they can be.

It's always a better idea to make a local copy of it.

Imagine they're downloading a project directly from your GitHub account. Even if you're not doing anything malicious and have no intention of doing anything malicious even after you've been aware of this, now all of a sudden your GitHub account / email is a huge target for anyone that wants to do something malicious.

They "gift you" a free standard plan if you have above a certain (non-transparent) level of stars, I don't think you can even disable your "subscription" if you get it for free.

.yu was purchasable long after the country ceased to exist, until 2008 to be exact.

Technically speaking, "Yugoslavia" continued to exist until 2003, when the name finally got deprecated in favour of "Serbia & Montenegro" as one country (also including the territory of Kosovo), which itself only lasted 3 years before Montenegro declared independence (and Kosovo did the same 2 years after).

So however you spin it, the domain outlived the country by at least 5 years, arguably 15(ish), 9 of which were post-war(s).

Some of the modern-day countries retained their five-digit postcodes from Yugoslav times (Serbia and Bosnia for sure, maybe a few more, I'm too lazy to check), some only got rid of the first digit which used to identify individual Yugoslav republics (AKA modern-day countries).

So I'd say it's highly likely they'd be delivered, as it's still mostly the same, though I should point out many cities changed names since. For like the most basic example, Montenegro's capital was called Titograd between WW2 and 1992, before it swapped back to being called Podgorica.

I'd rather set my money on fire than gamble, thank you very much.

Betting on a ceasefire isn't the interesting part, placing a five digit bet on a ceasefire by March 31st using brand-new accounts is.

Do you have any other plausible explanation for this behaviour? I can't think of any, if it's just like your average WallStreetBets gambler, why would they be making these bets from brand-new accounts?

We've been through this already, someone placed a $30k bet (payout around $400k) that Maduro will leave office by the end of January hours before the US raid took place.

Have you noticed any meaningful scandals back then?

According to whom? You?

The only thing ECHR cares about is one piece of "legislation", which is not a law, but a declaration (Declaration of Human Rights), so that you have some sort of internationally recognised body to go to whenever you feel that your local judicial system has done you injustice. That is all it does. That is all it is meant to do. That is the sole reason of its existence. It is not a legislative body at all.

> ECHR can simply invalidate national law.

It can't. You're either making things up or severely misunderstanding the court. It can say "this law doesn't align with the Declaration" and that's it. The law still exists. ECHR relies on signatories being willing to make the necessary changes themselves. Some are and get right on it, some aren't. The election law in my country has lost 5 cases in the ECHR and not a single one of the verdicts are fixed as of now, the oldest of which dates back to 2009. This is horrible, I want to see them fixed, but ECHR can't force us to fix it and we as in the country face 0 consequences for not addressing any of them (as of yet).

There is a separate court called European Court of Justice which is the equivalent of the US supreme court and is tasked with interpreting EU-wide laws and making sure national laws are aligned as much as possible. That is a legislative body with an enforcement mechanism. ECHR is not, you don't know what you're talking about.

I interpret ECHR as what it is: not a regulatory body by any stretch of the imagination. It can recommend changes to the national law, but it cannot force any state to do so. You seem to be interpreting it as some sort of an equivalent to the US supreme court, which it is not.

But now we're straying even further from my original argument which boils down to "laws mean something" into arguing the intricacies of how laws are supposed to be changed. I'm not interested in having that discussion, as it has nothing to do with my original claim.

Does that football scenario mean that the rule of law doesn't exist or that it does exist and is being enforced?

I agree with you that both of those laws are stupid, but that's a completely separate discussion to what I'm claiming above.

Considering who we're comparing it to when discussing this topic: absolutely. Not even a question.

Anyone claiming otherwise is delusional at best.

I don't agree with your first point at all, posting on other platforms is trivial and there's what must be hundreds of post scheduling options you can hook into an RSS feed. Here's a completely open source one that you have to spend a lot of time configuring API keys for, but then it just works: https://postiz.com/

What makes it difficult is all of the quirks you have to account for. For the most trivial example, Twitter has a character limit of 280 characters, but it's 300 on Bluesky, 500 on Threads, and on Mastodon it is whatever your instance wants it to be.

For another quirk, I have like a side-project in which I publish snippets of DJs playing copyrighted music, and while I can post those videos on TikTok/Instagram/YouTube without worrying about copyright, I am like 99% confident my website would be instantly delisted from all the search engines if I used the POSSE strategy for that use case.

I agree with your second point that getting anything useful out of it (as in traffic to the source) is pretty much impossible. On Instagram you can only do that via stories, but you can't automate it, because you need Instagram's story editor to add a link to the story. On TikTok you can't even put a link-in-bio until you reach a 1000 followers. On Twitter you might as well not bother, as the medium itself prefers completely unsourced claims. As for Facebook, I honestly don't even know why anyone would bother with Facebook these days, it's completely irrelevant.

Considering how many comments you left in this one thread, it definitely sounds like quitting would be beneficial for you.

Your job in any political office is not to leave everything as-is and to cement yourself into that position, but to make marginal improvements, even if doing so costs you the next elections or inconveniences people (hopefully only temporarily).

Most of those marginal improvements can only be seen as something positive in retrospective, not while they're being made. While they're being made, they'll always be unpopular, as the voter base is usually not keen on defending the people that are currently in charge. That doesn't mean they won't show up in the next elections, just that they are quieter in the meantime.

Absolutely not, Germany in general cares more about privacy than any other European country, which of course extends to cops, but you cannot extrapolate anything privacy-related from Germany as a continent-wide rule.

If you really want to generalise across the continent, the most common scenario would be that you're completely within your right to film them and publish that, but then the cops would argue (using GDPR of all things) that you have to blur their faces and names before publishing. (Try to argue != succeeding automatically, that's up to the court to decide.)

Okay, how do you know? Let's go through this step-by-step, in your opinion, what's the difference between a real commitment and a not-real commitment that you can point to before there's a meaningful-enough emergency to make you show your cards? What would be a non-token amount of troops?

I'd work the same in pretty much any European country, as in you'd record them, you'd publish that, they'd make up some lame excuse why that's not allowed, it'd go to a court, and a judge would decide who was right case-by-case?

Not quite sure which part of this process do you think is even remotely unique to the US.

I'd suggest you read the article or the Bluesky thread.

...because he had competent people around him that he trusted enough to make decisions, and not former TV hosts.

This isn't to say "oh he was just a puppet" nor "all US presidents are puppets", but to say that the decision of who they choose to fill important positions is in and of itself the most important decision in every presidential term. They only really need to be not senile for the first month or so, for the rest of the term it's just a PR problem.

You seem to have a fundamental issue understanding what the term deterministic even means.

If you give the same trivial task to the same human five times in a row, let's say wash the dishes, your dishes are either gonna be equally clean or equally not clean enough every time. Hell, it might even get better over time by giving them feedback at the end of the task that it can learn from.

If you run the same script five times in a row while changing some input variables, you're gonna get the same, predictable output that you can understand, look at the code, and fix.

If you ask the same question to the same LLM model five times in a row, are you getting the same result every time? Is it kind of random? Can the quality be vastly different if you reject all of its changes, start a new conversation, and tell it to do the same thing again using the exact same prompt? Congrats, that's gambling. It's no different than spinning a slot machine in a sense that you pass it an input and hope for the best as the output. It is different than a slot machine in a sense that you can influence those odds by asking "better", but that does not make it not gambling.