[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 8 points 5 days ago

By the time they're about to go belly up, companies no longer have the resources to ensure they comb through the code to remove the parts licensed from 3rd parties, and the liquidators see all assets as something to sell in order to cover whatever loans the company got.

In an ideal world, consumers would never buy a non-open sourced car, or phone, or IoT device.

In the real world, regulators need to force companies to give consumers at least some basic way to control the products they buy.

[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 16 points 5 days ago

Smart to have a buyback clause in the contract, otherwise this would've been lost and locked until the patent expired.

[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 1 points 5 days ago

You say I don't read... then proceed to explain the same that I already said? Ok.

[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 39 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This is going to get interesting:

The decision imposes a daily fine of R$50,000 (£6,800) on individuals and companies that attempt to continue using X via VPN.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/30/elon-musk-x-could-face-ban-in-brazil-after-failure-to-appoint-legal-representative

[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 6 points 1 week ago

A judge's ruling on a previous case makes that ruling law.

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.

To draw an example, the EU never made a law about cookie splash screens.

A very poor example; Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive 2002/58/EC.

The EU at its top level creates "Directives", which member states then are bound to transpose into their national Civil Law systems. Judges can interprete that law in different ways, none of which creates a precedent. Only a country's Supreme Court decision creates a precedent for that country, but even then it can be recurred up to the EU Tribunal, which has the last saying.

[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 8 points 1 week ago

Where I am, the news said:

  • "Telegram is a social network" (it isn't)
  • "that allows terrorism from Russia and Iran" (it's used by Russian and Iranian oppositors)
  • "drug trafficking" (because it's encrypted, I guess)
  • "fraud" (scams are also part of email and the web)
  • "money laundering" (...what?)
  • "piracy" (sigh...)
  • "and distribution of child pornography." (so does email)
  • "It doesn't honor removal requests from the film/music industry organizations" (that's piracy twice)

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

Terrorists, pedophiles/child molesters, organized crime like drug dealers, intellectual property pirates, and money launderers are cited commonly

Do we have a BINGO?

[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It may not be just the Kremlin. I've had several cases where I wrote about something in a Telegram chat, stuff I had never talked about before, and in a matter of seconds started seeing related ads on Facebook.

Alternatively, it could be the keyboard leaking all text, or I could have some other spyware, but I've only had that happen to me between Telegram and Facebook.

Then again, Telegram group chats are unencrypted, and personal chats are unencrypted by default.

[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 8 points 1 week ago

On the bright sight, he also promised Saudi Arabia to build a Hyperloop, also for The Line city in Neom, that's turning out to be a great way to syphon SA's oil sales state fund.

But seriously, a Hyperloop would work best on Mars, where the pressure differential would be minimal, while a tube would keep the dust out. Elon's master plan is still to build a Mars colony with indentured servants under threat of no air. On the way, he's scamming whoever it takes, and getting any investment or benefit he can land.

[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 4 points 1 week ago

narcissistic arsehole

I've recently got suckered into a group that turned out to consider calling people "narcissistic" is an "ableist slur... because narcissism is a disability".

EM is still kind of a real life Tony Stark, the character is not exactly an altruistic philanthropist either.

[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 3 points 2 weeks ago

Well, there is an OpenSource client, and private servers with custom rules. That makes every modification possible.

[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 3 points 2 weeks ago

Not great. We'll see during next hatching season.

[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 6 points 2 weeks ago

US company enacting puritanical culture erasure guidelines? What's new?

If they want their culture preserved, there is peertube and archive.org, but they may have trouble monetizing them.

48
submitted 5 months ago by jarfil@beehaw.org to c/space@beehaw.org
11
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by jarfil@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

Brace for impact.

27
submitted 10 months ago by jarfil@beehaw.org to c/news@beehaw.org

Israeli troops and tanks launched a brief ground raid into northern Gaza overnight into Thursday, the military said, striking several militant targets in order to “prepare the battlefield” ahead of a widely expected ground invasion

269
submitted 1 year ago by jarfil@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

The difference between the two security features is that Safe Browsing will compare a visited site to a locally stored list of domains, compared to Enhanced Safe Browser, which will check if a site is malicious in real-time against Google's cloud services.

While it may seem like Enhanced Safe Browsing is the better way to go, there is a slight trade-off in privacy, as Chrome and Gmail will share URLs with Google to check if they are malicious and temporarily associate this information with your signed-in Google account.

90
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by jarfil@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

This time, straight from a patent granted to a blockchain company, with no accompanying paper or proof.

Edit: after reviewing the patent, and as pointed out by @floofloof@lemmy.ca, this is an incredible amount of BS. The patent's initial date is Feb 2020, issue date Dec 2021. It has no proof, because it claims to speculatively apply a possible theory by someone else, onto how to make a flexible Type II semiconductor out of a Type I semiconductor, in case this ever happens to be possible with that theory. Basically a patent troll waiting to see if someone happens to make possible the elements they've used in the patent, then jump in and claim an application.

Honestly, didn't know speculative patents like this were possible.

view more: next ›

jarfil

joined 1 year ago