BartjeD
It's silly to treat these things as separate categories as if only one will happen at a time. These issues are happening, and are going to happen all at once. That is the fundamental challenge. AI plays into that because it can make wars and nuclear exchanges so much more effective.
If an AI tells the President the USA can survive China's nuclear barrage mostly unschathed, perhaps he'll press the button...
They didn't ideate food, dear.
--- Very unsatisifying indeed. I've always thought of it as the human penchant for escapism. In casu trying to interpret the world so that we control it. Which brings us back to Freud and the human condition: We are born trying to control things around us, fighting against our limits and learning to live with them.
I was very impressed.
I think its dumb.
Their support is hidden away in a chat bubble at the bottom. But they do respond promptly.
Its decent, but after switching to Google i wouldn't go back
The knowledge cut off gap means they don't know about the most recent case-law.
I've seent his happen multiple times now. Professionals drafting letters and missing recent case-law which handles their exact case. It's unreliable.So it can save you some work; but it can't save you all of the work. And in some cases its mistakes really force you to redo all the work, and more, to be thorough and have confidence in the result.
In civil law you can sue with an action under contract enforcement, which carries a lighter burden of proof
Reasonableness and good faith are implied in contracts. If a clause kills the essence of a contract maliciously, the court will not enforce it.
The fed is being dismantled in front of our eyes.
Militia's shoot US citizens for documenting their illegal behavior.
Insane
But, integrally the whole package is just wishful thinking.
I mean, maybe it was elastic for imports from Heard and McDonald Islands. Penguins don't care about margins after all.
I don't think you appreciate the way justice becomes irrelevant in fascist and tyrannical countries.
The 'show' of fair justice, dispensed with care and deliberation, is something you seem to take for granted.
In most countries you get put up against a wall, and shot, for saying the wrong things about the right people.
I find your argument uniquely cowardly: Power without justice is a recipe for tyranny. And the position that tyranny should be the norm is something an evil or cowardly person espouses.
Yes, there is plenty of atrocity. Pretending the allied behavior is as atrocious as Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, or Hitler, is pretentious relativism.
The fact that people want to change their culture is possibly an early indication of a shift, which could take decades or centuries to actually occur. And such a cultural shift can also lose momentum and be still-born.
---
I find counting suicides innovative. But if you do it in a global context without looking at the cultures as confounding factor: It's wrong.
There are many other confounding factors, such as a forgiving national (personal) bankruptcy regime. The USA has a pretty forgiving regime compared to other countries. But that doesn't mean you can say it correlates with how happy people are. Because - like suicides - the number of people that go bankrupt might not significantly correlate to the average happiness rate. Because a (small) minority of people go bankrupt / commit suicide.
It's in fact perfectly reasonable and possible to suppose that a country with higher average suicides and harsher penalties for bankruptcy still ends up higher on the happiness index. Because perhaps health and social-contact / family factors impact the rating more, on average.
Ofcourse the existence of 10 alternatives is meaningless if they count for 0.01% of given market section. Lol
But that also adds complexity.
If a principle of the EU legal order is at stake, such as the right to privacy, then that constitutional imperative can very well override a new law.
The commission and parliament are well aware of this risk. They often choose to have laws advised on by the courts, in advance. To avoid a legal mess.
This is normal in a functional democracy. To avoid abuse of power / overreach by any institution.
I don't think your narrative is as informed as you make it out to be.
Most international trade agreements don't cover services in in a comprehensive manner. Because they are so varied and difficult to regulate. E.g. banking, sales, advice, software.
For Cloudflare it's obviously of commerical interest to establish a world wide level playing field.
I don't see it happening. Certainly not because of US trade interests. Because there is a serious lack of good will towards the USA, basically anywhere in the (rest of the) world right now, and services are a much bigger part of the economy than manufacted produce.
The trend I see is to decouple from the US, and China.
I genuinely couldn't reccomend my own country to make a deal with the USA on services. Because we already have a serious issue with the dominance of US cloud tech.
The point I raise is that the internet is international. There are N legal systems that are going to deal with this. And in 99% of them this isn't going to end well for Google if plaintiff can show there are damages to a reasonable degree.
It's bonkers in terms of risk management.
If you want to make this a workable system you have to make it very clear this isn't necessarily dangerous at all, or criminal. And that a third party list was used, in part, to flag it. And even then you're impeding visitors to a website with warnings without any evidence that there is in fact something wrong.
If this happens to a political party hosting blogs, it's hunting season.
You're honor, we hurt the plaintiff because it's better than nothing!
The fact it's used by one or more browsers in that way is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Because they, the browsers, are pointing a finger to someone else and accusing them of criminal behavior. That is what a normal user understands this warning as.
Turns out they are wrong. And in being wrong they may well have harmed the party they pointed at, in reputation and / or sales.
It's remarkable how short sighted this is, given that the web is so international. Its not a defense to say some third party has a list, and you're not on it so you're dangerous
Incredible
A `;)` is normally understoond to mean the author isn't entirely serious, and is making light of something or other.
Perhaps you American downvoters were on call and woke up with a fright, and perhaps too much time to browse Hacker News. ;)