throw_a_grenade

That depends on country, in Poland you don't need to carry any ID on you anymore (you're then required to remember PESEL number, and recite it to police if asked; 11 digits, six of those are birthday).

I don't know SF homeless, but if you'd come ove here, you'd be surprised. Some of the refugees I met were “normal people” in their previous years, smart, well educated, well paid, resourceful. Some of them were much, much richer than me. That's simply because the poor in their country lack the means to even start the journey. They are those who have no choice but to rot to death (sometimes literally, sometimes figuratively). But not those who chose to leave the circumstances.

I'm not sure about the exact context of the language you quoted(not a native speaker), but ISTM you mean “well it's their choice that they are homeless” as somehow demeaning. Is it used in your country as a rhetorical device to imply that a person could have just chosen not to be poor (or persecuted), and then as an excuse not to help someone in need? That's very wrong and not matching reality I saw. Usually the choice was to either flee or something even worse happens to him/her (or the family).

This is HN, not fediverse, I thougt we can have a discussion that would involve making a distinction on this nuance (choice vs decision vs responsibility vs fault), instead on casting general aspersions, as is the case in other social media.

Not my choice, but my decision. It's not a question of responsibility of the a priori situation, but the moment that I snap and decide I can't take it any more. I need to do something. And not doing something is also a decision.

I helped a bit as a volunteer in an orga that among other things worked with refugees and I heard their stories. Every single one had this moment that one day they have risen and took ownership of their lives, instead of succumbing to helplessness. If they didn't, they probably wouldn't make it. That is something to admire.

One thing migrants and homeless need is to recognise they're humans that are disposed to make decisions about themselves, by themselves. To deny that is cruel, because it's inhumane. Humans can make decisions, non-humans can not. I don't know how it is on other side of the pond, but over here in Europe there's a big campaign to portray refugees (and all migrants) as non- (or sub-) humans, and denying them agency is part of that effort.

Stuff that we consider abnormal (homelessness, migration/seeking asylum, etc.) is at some point personal decision („I'm going to try to move to the next country, whatever it takes”), even if usually are not perceived as real choices, e.g. when the alternative is a lack of food or to sustain persecution. But a decision nonetheless, and one that will be taken by resourceful people, those who can spend a night or a fortnight in a tent.

If you know how to survive in a forest, you're a good candidate for a homeless or a migrant. Such decision point might be closer than you think.

> Where is the HQ of the company?

If outside EU, then they need to accept EU jurisdiction and notify who is representative plenipotentiary (== can make decisions and take liability on behalf of the company).

> Where does the company operate?

Geography mostly doesn't matter as long as they interact with EU people. Because people are more important.

> What country is the individual user in?

Any EU (or EEA) country.

> What country do the servers and data reside in?

Again, doesn't matter, because people > servers.

It's almost like if bureaucrats who are writing regulations are experienced in writing regulations in such a way they can't be circumvented.

EDIT TO ADD:

From OpenAI privacy policy:

> 1. Data controller

> If you live in the European Economic Area (EEA) or Switzerland, OpenAI Ireland Limited, with its registered office at 1st Floor, The Liffey Trust Centre, 117-126 Sheriff Street Upper, Dublin 1, D01 YC43, Ireland, is the controller and is responsible for the processing of your Personal Data as described in this Privacy Policy.

> If you live in the UK, OpenAI OpCo, LLC, with its registered office at 1960 Bryant Street, San Francisco, California 94110, United States, is the controller and is responsible for the processing of your Personal Data as described in this Privacy Policy.

No, the company you're sending it to is required to care for it. Up to and including refusing to accept that data if need be.

Tangential: does anyone know if there is a site that collects backgrounds from cartoons? Those would be gorgeous wallpapers.

What is the reason to pick Stalwart over Nextcloud? Nextcloud also has calendars, contacts, files, and integrated mail client. And a reasonably sized ecosystem of apps.

And I still can't tell if this particular rectangle is a button or not. In the example renders I can't tell for approximately half of the widgets, what will happen if I click them.

I will continue to think mobile UI peaked around Android 4.0.

That's wdat minijinja does internally. As an argument to Template::render() you can give it any struct that implements Deserialize. That's how you can get varying (sic) variables to a single function and even attributes on "objects" processed by tte template.

No, when it tumbles, it does it around its centre of mass. You'd have to get a craft that has empty area inside.

If you know Elite, it has space stations where you dock by going inside, while matching station's rotation. That's only in one axis (and note the hangar goes through the axis of rotation, i.e. centre of mass). To add rotation around another axis would make the task impossible.

zoom.com is an audio equipment manufacturer, which was there before zoom.us.

I guess that's what happens where they had to accept substandard domain, because they were unwilling to be creative about their name.

Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43657935

Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43657935

Repo is archived: https://github.com/girlbossceo/conduwuit

> Elon Musk enjoys a level of access to the US executive branch that other companies only dream of

In short, he's an oligarch. Over here we don't react kindly to that level of political corruption.

> Don't blame Microsoft/GitHub

I don't think this is a question of blame, rather than suitability. In the spirit of blameless postmortem, I'll state that GitHub was found unsuitable for hosting a FOSS project.

Why it's unsuitable is truly a secondary question, but it shouldn't prevent us, Free Software maintainers, from drawing necessary conclusions.

Do you know which EE scenarios do they run?

Specifically, weapons over which we won't have full control after we take delivery. There's another point in that agreement, design authority over those weapons must be in EU — e.g. no licenced components (even 100% manufactured in Europe) that USA needs to provide software updates for.

The first sector this happens is defence industry, one of the US of A's biggest exports. EU already decided that weapons will need to be at least 65% manufactured in Europe: https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-freeze-us-multi-billion-d...

Eric did exactly what you suggest, and found out he can't really build it without permission from the manufacturer. So no, you can't just pull up the pants.

> You’ve got a monopoly on lemonade because you pay all the grocery stores to be the default lemonade.

> So we’re going to force you sell your car.

This is b*llocks. Google financed being monopolist in cars with profits from its monopoly on lemonade, which they then used to perpetuate the monopoly on lemonade. We can't solve lemonade problem for now, but we can easily fix the car monopoly problem and break the feedback loop between the two.

If you're talking about technical capability, yeah, no contest here.

But if EC can legislate e-signatures into existence, then it follows that they can also legislate browsers into accepting Q certs, can they not?

Mind you, they did exactly that with document signing. They made a piece of paper say three things: 1) e-signatures made by private keys matching Qualified™ Certificates are legally equivalent to written signatures, 2) all authorities are required to accept e-signatures, 3) here's how to get qualified certificates.

Upon reading this enchated scroll, 3) magically spawned and went to live its own way. ID cards issued here to every citizen are smartcards preloaded with private keys for which you can download an X.509 cert good for everydoy use. The hard part was 2), because we needed to equip and retrain every single civil servant, big number of them were older people not happy to change the way they work. But it happened.

So if the hard part is building and the easy part is regulating, and they have prior art already exercised, then why bother competing with Google, on a loss leader, with taxpayer funds. And with non-technical feature, but a regulatory one, which would most likely case the technical aspects like performance and plugin availability to be neglected.

1) From an eurocrat pov, why build a browser when you can regulate the existing ones instead? EU core competence is regulating, not building, and they know it.

2) You don't actually need to build a browser to achieve this goal, you just need a root program, and a viable (to some extent) substitute already exists. cf. all "Qualified" stuff in EU lingo. So again why do the work and risk spectacular failure if you don't need to.

3) Building alternative browser for EU commerce that you'd have to use for single market, but likely wouldn't work for webpages from other countries would be a bad user experience. I know what I'm sayig, I use Qubes and I've got different VMs with separate browser instances for banking etc. I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't like to have a similar set up even with working clipboard.

There are things you can't achieve by regulation, e.g. Galileo the GPS replacement, which you can't regulate into existence. Or national clouds: GDPR, DSA, et al. won't magically spawn a fully loaded colo. Those surely need to be built, but another Chromium derivative would serve no purpose.

That's orthogonal problem. eIDAS had to solve many problems to create full solution. You're right that we have many TSPs (aka CAs), NABs also. EU have experience running continent-wide PKI for e-signatures that are accepted in other countries. But no root programs in WebPKI, which were essentially unaccountable to EU, but a critical link in the chain in end-to-end solution. There's was no guarantee that browser vendors won't establish capricious requirements for joining root programs (i.e. ones that would be incompatible with EU law and would exclude European TSPs). Therefore the initial draft stated that browsers need to import EU trustlist wholesale and are prohibited from adding their own requirements.

(That of course had to be amended, because some of those additional requirement were actually good ideas like CT, and there should be room for legitimate innovation like shorter certs, and also it's OK for browsers to do suffifcient oversight for TSPs breaking the rules, like the ongoing delrev problem).

/cough/ VeriSign /cough/

To add to this, EU's 2021 eIDAS (the one with mandatory trustlist) was a response to similar lack of availability. Contrary to what most HNers instincively thought it wasn't about interception: EC was annoyed that none of root programs is based in EU, and that causes 100% of trust decisions to be made on the other side of the Big Water. EC felt a need to do something about in, having in regard the fact that TLS certificates are needed for modern business, healthcare, finance etc., they have seen it as economy sovereignity issue.

My point is, lack of options, aka availability, is (or may be perceived as) dangerous on multiple layers of of WebPKI.