dathinab
it means not intended with the purpose to make money from it
founding doesn't always imply. a startup-like process of selling stock (or similar) to investors which in turn want some profit from it long term
it can also mean looking for donations to found a project, i.e. cover it's costs
you are centrist and have a good point to complain about not liked by them, sorry you are now left
you are conservative right, but have very different views about separation of religion and state, sorry that is woke you are now left, too
you care bout civil right of all US citizens and especially want to better protect workers against abuse, oh dang I fear that is "left extremist" maybe even "domestic terrorist"
/s
except if they payed for private insurance and pay extra for a single room and get into one of the fancy mostly private only hospitals
but I don't think the people in question think about this as "I'm fine who care what happens to you" terms but more in "we didn't had this in the past we don't need it now" manner in a way not just crule to other _but also to them self_.
but I abuse tabs (and especially tab groups) as a form a "read later"
sure there are extensions which do that better, but they aren't build-in and given how dangerous extensions can be (depending on a lot of criteria) and tab groups being close to "all I want" it's just not worth it
loved the idea when FF adopted pocked, but Pocked never really clicked with me and it was never fully transparently integrated into the browser.
and yes this approach is prone to losing tabs in various situations, but lets be honest if I haven't read something by the time I lose a tab in the end it's just an indicator that it's probably doesn't matter
single >30C day was worth a full front-page on a large newspaper just idk. 15 years ago.
there are songs written about the temp. being 35C because it was that really special heat day you have at most once every few years (we had multiple days of that in a row and reaching basically 40C this year)
last summer we had >week with temperatures with 15-20C over the average temp. (of that month in the past)! And still >10C over the average of monthly maximal temperatures. Month where you normally are happy for 20C breaking full year/high of the summer heat records...
basically Germany went in one year from "yeah there are more really hot days in summer in average, it's a pain, but fine" to "oh, shit, we have a huge problem in a lot of areas due to the lack of AC"
most annoying many older, especially conservative, politicians still approach this with a "was fine for us will be fine for you/no AC for you" mentality. Especially when it comes to topics like spending money for thinks like making sure Hospital facilities for newborns have AC (that young children can't properly self regulate their body temperature, until idk. 9-12 moth of age).
This anyway isn't specific to one political direction, I mean yes some regulations affect the cooling liquid used, nothing of which is a major road block.
Also the huge majority of new supper market, shopping centers, cars etc. in both countries you named have AC
But also other other mentioned heat death in that statistic are mostly a combination with other health issues. Hence why there is some relation between countries having a lot of old people and countries having a lot of heat related death. But also hence why many people will not treat this death as heat death even if they happen to their family.
A big problem for changing the current state in Germany are also like so "old politicians being mentally stuck in the past". The kind of "we didn't need it so you don't either" mindset. (Which if we have to speak about political direction is more common on the right side of the political spectrum, maybe simple due to that side being also older in average).
- personalized ads
- election ads
by law strictly two different things.
The risk of voter manipulation is just way to high. This also isn't just about manipulation by US companies, the system they created is just to ab-usable by others, too. To make it worse the more ethical values a person has/upright and honest they are the less likely are to use such means but the more likely they would make a good elected politician for the general population. At the same time humans are just way too easy to manipulate.
(Naturally there is also a case for _any_ personalized ads being a high risk for societies, especially democracies, and in turn the concept if it should be banned. Important here is to note that often just basing ads on the "non ad content" they are displayed alongside with is getting you quite far. So if there even is a need for highly personalized ads can be put in question. Through the topic gets far more complicated with highly personalized non ad content recommendation systems..)
(1): Might be worth pointing out here that Meta has a long history of basing personalization not just on what you do but what people "close to you" do. E.g. if Meta knows you are in the same location (e.g. same WiFi, not sure if they use that today) and then shortly after the other person searches for idk. air purifiers the chance of you getting air purifier ads is largely increased.
or selling AI to "make your software secure"?
most things aren't hallucinated
and the original is available for download via torrent and most newspapers etc. have based their reporting on this
> AfD literally against democracy, or against the constitution
a huge part of the people currently in leading position had been in organizations which where so extrema radical and anti-constitutional that they have been force dissolved which has a very high legal burden to happen. This includes organizations which where out right Neo-Nazi organizations celebrating Hitler and what he did (but also many other not neo-nazi but not any less dangerous organizations/movement)
> (vaguely defined, because they're discriminating against immigrants)?
concretely defined because many of their members have been in neo nazi and other similar bad organizations which have been force desolved
and because they have very openly represented values which are against most of the extra protected/valued part of the German constitution, including in no specific order
- very publicly being against woman rights in many cases and forms, including in speeches hold in the "senate" (Bundestag)
- not "just" being against immigrants, but dehumanizing them and calling for violence against them
- their publicized anti immigration plans also go beyond immigrants seem to want to kick out anyone with different ethnicity no matter if they have grown up as a German Citizen. Sure they are a bit more vague about this, but it's the only way their numbers about people they want to kick out add up.
- campaigning for wanting to remove some of the check and balances in the constitution against extremist populist takeover
- publicly downplaying anti-semitic terrorist attacks
- lets also not forget stuff like that they just recently tried to conspire with the BSW to prevent elected CDU officials from taking part ins some votes
to just name a very small fraction of what they did.
Nothing there is "vague", or "maybe this are just some people" or anything like this. This party is _very clear cut_ a threat to German constitution even if this might not apply to every single member of it.
If you apply the same standards as for the process against the NPD the AfD would have been dissolved by now.
but this AI summaries have been a mistake as now the AfD will with some degree of success go around claiming that anything bad is supposedly AI generated, even if it very clearly isn't
But intend can matter if you are caught can influence where in the possible range of penalties the judge will judge you.
There is also a chance the site provider and actual hacker/torrent provider are not the same person, in which case if they go after the site provider they could argue they just did automatized journalistic work with reasonable journalistic standards (not sure if that will work, but it would be worth a try; also only relevant if they are two different people).
Lastly the hacker might be very inexperienced/didn't really expect much success which also could explain the current outcome.
There is also the point that a website might be indexed by bots/search engines, the torrent might not and this could cause some problems. E.g. very very early one the AfD was not yet clear right radical and the mails date back to this time. If someone hat interactions with them only then but now get indexed by some search/ai which lets say an employer uses to screen hires this could have very bad consequences for that person without them having done anything wrong (if their connection to it really was only during the very very early days).
it also dates back to the funding times of the AfD at which point the AfD had not yet been clearly right radical, but a side publishing it might very well be scanned by bots and then someone decent who was shortly a member during the early days and left due realizing this is going in a very bad direction might "permanently" be described as AfD member or similar in search, agent questions, e.g. done when they look for a new job
but I think the more relevant point here is probably the reduction of legal consequences and I wouldn't be surprised if whoever provided the site and the hacker are two different entities
lastly this seem to have been an exceedingly trivial but AI supported hack, so there is some chance the was done by a young and very inexperienced person who got more then they bargained for and try to somehow balance personal risk with the hope that this helps with convincing more people how bad the AfD is or similar
either-way multiple new sites and other sources have downloaded the sources and verified random samples where possible and it seem the dump is actually fully authentic
it's more transaction tokenization system then a crypto currency, so you don't really "buy Taler (currency)", you give Taler digital Euros and they give you a token representing this digital Euros in a more anonymous way. (They also can work for other currencies, but doesn't do currency exchanges/cross currency transactions itself).
Effectively this means:
- The merchant (e.g. your local grocery store, restaurant etc.) doesn't get information about you they can aggregate, sell etc. This is the main improvement.
- It's not controlled by a US company, this is also a pretty big improvement.
- Taler doesn't strictly require customer wallets to be bound to an bank account nor do they identify who you are as a customer. This makes it hard for Taler to abuse the audit log, which is also an improvement.
- It does strictly require merchants (anyone receiving money) to be bound to a bank account for given currency (here Euro). It's best to think about it as the money going directly to the merchants normal bank account.
- Taler has audit logs containing what token was used from which customer(id) with which merchant (which is strictly bound to having to have a bank account), as well as logs about how money got into the customers wallet and all this methods you can put money into it will (likely) be traceable, so criminal investigator and similar can still pretty much trace back who did which transaction when. Just with a bit more effort/extra steps. So with enough automation states can as much surveil you then they can now. Practically it seems to make things a bit more high effort then today, which is a good thing to have.
IFF Taler allow putting digital Euros into a wallet using gift cards buyable with cash this indeed could still be used for money laundering (similar to how most gift card systems can be used for it), but I think it's unlikely they allow such things and most people practically will likely link up their bank account.
Another thing to consider is that for any ordering of physical good you normally have to put in a shipping address with your name, even if you send it to a post box.
And for a bunch of other things the vendor also has to get your identity out of band (independent of used payment processing). E.g. many kinds of contracts, high value payments, currency exchanges etc. etc.
This doesn't make it useless. It still is an improvement. Especially if payment terminals in physical shops get support for it and/or digital goods can be bought with it. In Germany a lot of the large chains with physical shops more or less all use the same payment terminals for card payment with support relative flexible software so it's actually possible I think. Just hard to happen without regulatory pressure, similar to Wero support on a payment terminal.
large companies, that should work
the state if it does an criminal investigation, that won't work, also at least for now there is no need to do so if you don't to anything criminal. Sure if fascists take over that would change but they then also would ban any system which would allow avoiding their gaze so not sure it's relevant tbh.
and as things are currently you have to far more worry about US companies and state knowing about what transactions which are legal but you want to keep private then about your local EU government
it's a practical doable improvement to the existing system in the existing legal framework
the outcome might be similar but there is a big difference in intend and framing there
Taler is _not_ a fully anonymous payment system nor does it claims so.
It solves two specific problems:
- merchants get way more personal information about you then they actually need (merchants as e.g. your grocery store)
- alternative payments system implementations not owned by visa
non of this points include, or pretend to include, that your transactions are anonymous to auditors. Taler is in it's documentation pretty clear about that. It's a improvement to existing payment systems in the framework and limitations of existing payment transactions.
For being a honeypot you normally discrepancy between disclosed information and actual situation or other way to try to trick people to disclose things they don't want to disclose.
Just because some improvement to existing payment systems isn't hitting some legally impossible ideal doesn't make it a honeypot or any other way malicious.
and much much less so wrt. (customer,merchent)-> auditor aspect.
It's also more German laws you have to worry about then EU regulators, as the German laws based on the regulation are noticeable more strict then what the EU requires.
And while this laws do apply to all transactions, they don't require the customer to be identified in every transaction. Instead it's a risk based model. E.g. you local grocery store doesn't check you identity when you buy some groceries with cash. Even if you buy with card no one checks if that is your card and the information the card transaction shared does not fulfill the data collection requirements for the highest risk transaction.
This is why Taler can work, _it_ has enough information to do risk and fraud detection for many "daily" low risk transaction. And for very high risk transactions the merchant anyway has to identify you out of band and can't rely on the card transaction information. Through I guess somewhere in between is still a gray area not sure how Taler handles that.
- this are rules created to be (kinda/mostly) uniformly applied across all projects at a Google Scale company
Having used rust at work since roughly ~1.0 days I have come to a realization:
- the style guides which work best for "blindly uniformly applied across all kind of projects/teams/people" are not the same as "my preferred style" _in a lot of ways_
- similar they are often not "the best" in every case but they are "uniformly applicable without having to make opinionated decisions" i.e. they don't cause frictions in review or when writing the code due to "style only"-decision without a clear good answer
As a more generic example. There are a lot of frameworks/style guides which lead to related logic being split across 3+ small files in different folders instead of having related code "close together". And this can be a huge pain and isn't how I would manage personal projects. BUT putting code close together will sometimes just not work for various reasons (often shared logic/cross cutting concerns) at which point you will have to make some compromise where/how to place the code which has no simple "no brain used schema-f" solution you can blindly apply no matter what. This can lead to friction. Once too many people touch the same code this tend to become a huge mess, too. So the companies use style guides which split things apart. Even through the outcome is for all the simple cases noticeable worse to work with. As it does scale to large teams, very varying skill levels and many people working on the same code.
Demand was on a constant down trends. From PCs, servers over light bulbs to electric based heating (heat pumps and IR heat lamps instead of "direct" electric heating + better insulation) everything has got _way_ more efficient. But also a lot of high energy need industry has moved of from the UK (or most 1st world countries) for decades by now.
A short (not proper) lookup show that even if you where to replace _all_ cars in the UK with electric cars the total need for that would be 30TWh/y while the UK produces ~322TWh/y so less then a 10% increase (in relation to production, not consumption).
The only thing which has caused a mayor hickup more or less all countries long term plan for electricity production is AI.
But not because GPGPU compute is that inefficient, it has gotten way more efficient. But instead because of how insanely much compute AI needs.
withholding security updates seems to avoid a law which requires rolling out security updates seems very much like something which needs to be fixed one way or another
either way if that is true it looks like a very intentional abuse/misinterpretation of existing regulations
true, but what if you just don't
use skills & multipasses to keep code clean and compact (which does work if you do it right, but drives up the cost)
use a different AI to review the first AI
give it a short not in depth human review, _except_ for anything security critical
rely on lintable language specific limitations (e.g. rust no unsafe, typing, white/banned lists of imports, no eval, language sandbox etc.) to reduce what can go wrong outside of the small part of properly reviewed code (and yes, this makes languages like C & C++ close to a no-go as many of the previous points are just too brittle)
I can not say I like this idea, I really really don't.
But I have seen a small startup having rather large success with it (at least during initial bootstrap time, rest will have to be seen), so as much as this idea repels me I fear this will become somewhat of an standard. But as mentioned they also did a _lot_ more then "just dropping in" AI. (Also maybe worth a shoot out is them doing decent requirements engineering, sure using AI, but I have seen way to many places skipping it fully at a hidden but extremely high long term cost)
I also have seen the opposites, large blobs of not well written AI generated code which produces a slew of subtle easy to overlook bugs & inconsistencies (partially due to giving the AI wrong requirements due to not having done requirements enginering) which passes tests but will come back to bite you later. This did drain teams hard. Not only did it eat a lot of time for reviewing, but also those kind of "not how humans would have messed it up" bugs drained even more time. Maybe worst all the new time drains where not the kind of work devs like to do, so that drained motivation to a point where it can affect productivity.
Redhead limits third party distribution
Google _sells_ third party distribution but forbids the third party to also provide products of a 4th party.
Both can be legally and ethically be discussed.
But one is open source being less open then it should be.
But the other "(effectively) forbids selling of a product of another vendor in context of duopoly".
That the product is based on a open source from the 1st party is overall irrelevant here.
I.e. this isn't really about open source, this is about _very_ fundamental rules of (proper working) capitalism being breached in ways which iff widely tolerated are very likely to lead to economical & innovation decline and long term collapse sooner or later.
but a break up is also kinda the most extreme case
more common is specific requirements being enforced onto the company and fining them severely if they continue to refuse to comply (while also still doing business in given country)
how is that legal??
that sounds like a very clean cut case of thinks companies aren't allowed to do under fair market lawes