FishFace @ FishFace @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

351

Joined

2 yr. ago

I know how HTTP works. These banners are supposed to (and are legally allowed to) store a cookie saying you have refused. Websites are allowed to store session cookies with displaying a banner at all.

Anyone, because even the (temporary) right to remain somewhere doesn't automatically mean you can leave and come back. In the UK if you are granted temporary leave to stay in the country for less than 6 months, leaving for any length of time will mean you're not allowed back in.

No, they set a cookie to store it, but with a low retention period, so you get bugged again.

A start would be to require sites to remember non-consents for at least as long as they remember consents. Why do I have to be asked about cookies by every site every month?

Your browser can not save third party cookies, but it might break some sites. Some advertising situations allow the use of first-party cookies, and blocking first-party cookies will break most sites.

In either case you will still have to fill out the consent form, and if the consent is stored in the kind of storage you block, then you will have to fill it out every single time you visit.

Yes, but it often doesn't work and even when it does the site is unusable while it works, which for some particularly awful banners is several minutes. The situation is worse on mobile where most people have a browser that you can't install add-ons to (and I'm not sure if that one works in firefox mobile anyway)

The detail here is that she applied for settled status, which would have granted her leave to remain in (and hence to enter) the country, but it was refused. Pending her appeal she was temporarily granted the right to work in the UK, but she was not temporarily granted the right to remain, it seems - or at least that's what the Home Office position implies.

It seems like an oversight to me: the application for settled status allows you to leave for up to 6 months at a time and come back and still qualify; if you can still work while you're appealing a decision, it would make sense to temporarily allow the person into the country.

Either too many people spamming so you can’t follow a single conversation, or for most channels you had 40 people idling and never responding, so it felt like a ghost town.

How is this different to Discord? You have huge, medium and small channels in both.

Shouldn't the engineer be a bit more worried if the cable's been cut?

If UDP drops packets it's probably nothing. If TCP drops packets it's because something's actually wrong.

If you're using TCP and losing packets you should be panicking though, because something is very wrong...

Bugger all!

OK, looks like I misunderstood what you were saying. Fair enough.

I agree that the PATRIOT act has harmed American citizens, but I think that's a completely Western-centric way of thinking that likely wouldn't even cross the mind of a radical Islamist. I don't think it can be said to have harmed the USA in the way that would further any of bin Laden's goals that we can infer from his words or otherwise. If anything, bin Laden was an authoritarian himself and so would be more likely to believe that state surveillance is beneficial to the wellbeing of the state.

One more time. I have at no time asserted that his stated goal was impossible or unachievable. Quit putting words in my mouth. I’m talking about how they get accomplished, yes?

Seems to me you're still saying 9/11 couldn't have achieved it.

You really want to get into a sidetrack about how a surveillance state harms the citizens of a democracy in a way that makes them prefer isolationism?

I want you to lay out why you think the PATRIOT act or something like it was likely foreseen by bin Laden and why he thought it would likely further his goals. You're hinting at a discussion from the perspective of "privacy-oriented types" rather than from bin Laden's perspective. There's to be done here than just argue, "bin Laden wanted to harm America, and eroding privacy harms America, therefore bin Laden did 9/11 to erode privacy." Many consequences of 9/11 might further or hinder bin Laden's goals, but IMO we're talking about more than that.

No.

You haven't answered the question. Texas Law circumscribes when self defence is a justification for the use of lethal force, and the situation is laid out as above: there must be someone who is or is believed to be about to unlawfully use force against the person being protected.

The foetus is not "trying" to kill the mother, and even if it were doing so, no court or reasonable person would describe it as an "unlawful use of force." It's just growing, presumably in a way harmful to the mother's life. Growing naturally is not "using force" and there's no law against it, so even if it were it wouldn't be unlawful.

Doctors, by declining medical care, are not using force, and unless there is a statute requiring them to provide care, also wouldn't be doing so unlawfully. If there were such a statute, it and the abortion ban would be in conflict, which is a more realistic way the ban might be struck down in the courts.

In the case at hand the likelihood of the mother actually dying should in fact be low - not almost certain as would be required for a charge of depraved heart murder.

You are talking in general terms about self defence standards instead of the text of the law on Texas' books.

Why the focus on Patriot Act, when it was one of three factors I listed?

Because it's the one that I see repeated most often by others and the one find most doubtful.

Why do you keep trying to say that I’m saying his stated goals were unbelievable, when I’ve repeatedly said I’m debating the specifics of how he expected to accomplish them? It’s not a “what”, it’s a “how”.

Because we started with a disagreement over what his goals were and you seem to have maintained your side of that disagreement? If you say "it was X, Y and Z" and I say, "no, it was A and B" and you then say "how on earth could what he did have achieved A" you're not actually arguing about "how" you're expressing your skepticism that it was A by casting doubt on how realistic it was.

I’ve repeatedly expressed my reasonings.

You haven't expressed a reason to believe that bin Laden wanted the USA to pass a law like the PATRIOT Act. You've made implications that you maybe don't actually believe it that strongly, but not gone so far as to say that you don't believe it, and you've talked about the other things you believe, but you're quite reticent to talk about that one.

I don't mind leaving aside the other stuff because this one, I think, is more egregious.

That's a difference but there are many more, which is why them getting the same label is unimportant.

No, it's not "both side bad" (and the implication there is that any time when someone says "both sides do this badly" is unhelpful, which I disagree with).

It's "both sides are doing something similar here but that thing isn't part of the reasoning or decision making of each side, and you're treating it like it is."

a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

Who is using unlawful force against the pregnant person here?