“Generous” is the noteworthy takeaway. Either ‘currency’ belongs to society and some people hoard it instead of circulating it, or ‘the world’ ‘belongs’ to a very select few people.
“Free speech” means freedom from consequences from the law, not necessarily from individuals who are allowed their own judgment accordingly
Totally unrelated, but have you ever seen the movie Fargo?
I don’t know?
I don’t wholly disagree, but I do take issue with the “they’d be none the wiser”
Even the average person knows there are more options than the original default browser. I have no love for windows, but long gone are the days when they didn’t prompt you for “would you like to make this your default browser” when you downloaded something else.
Try changing the average user’s web browser that they’re accustomed to overnight and tell me they don’t pitch a fit
Well you’re right, that comment got away from me and I forgot how I started it, so that did sound pretty dumb on re-reading.
Aside from that though, let’s dig in.
Are you suggesting only the very intelligent vote? How do you propose we have an inclusive voting system while not accepting that some people will vote recklessly, mistakenly (as in understanding), or antagonistically? It is a natural trapping and I see no way of extinguishing less than informed votes.
Yes, platforms and pillars are not as finely detailed during campaigns to the greater public. But it is unarguable that the two parties branch at the question of “remain the same as much as possible” vs “progress the government to meet modern times”
Other parties generally stem from the big two. It’s been a long time since anarchy or pure communism had a seat at the table
I was obviously being facetious. Poking at the fact that rich vacationers visit the Virgin Islands while endorsing the above commenters opinion. Yes they (virgin islanders) need infrastructure as do many places.
Did you really read that as if I’m worried about one needing community and not about another, or were you being a dick?
Let’s refine your comment.
In a majority rules, representative democracy, the peoples’ voice is heard through electing officials that promise to vote on behalf of the constituents.
This is seen to good effect in the legislative branch, where specific candidates hold office for short terms. But as empirical data suggests, the two party system is still relied upon, especially when it comes to less-than-ideally informed voters.
When it comes to presidential candidates, who wield far greater power over longer terms, voters are averse to the risk of giant, sweeping changes.
There have been numerous popular third-party candidates vying for the presidency, but none that sufficiently capture a voter base. So, therefore it is equated to throwing the vote away
But imo, long live Bernie. I would have voted with my soul
Pffff that’s poor people. What about the rich people on vacation for a week?? When will we learn to think about the rich people?
Right, but the Browser Wars are long dead and Google essentially won, then proceeded to build their business upon that outcome. It is surprising that they would opt to potentially lose their market share, (which is in the ballpark of 70% of users!), to reclaim the 10% they may be able to take from Mozilla.
** I want to add: I relatively recently watched the YouTuber Louis Rossman’s breakdown of u/Spez and his ridiculous handling of Reddit api pricing. The conclusion was basically that spez discarded his business sense to chase a vendetta. He wasn’t pricing to maximize Reddit’s profits but was pricing out Christian because the latter was more articulate about the issue at hand. I believe we’re seeing the same… that some exec within alphabet decided enough is enough and he is going to make sure adblocks die, regardless of what business sense tells us
I truly don’t understand their motivation to do this. It is the definition of anti-competitive behavior. Maybe they hope that a lawsuit will arrive at a default judgement on adblockers? Or maybe they’re just so brazen in that the US government won’t break up one of its prized conglomerates? One thing is for sure, Mozilla is going to continue to be awarded headlines
Look through OP’s account. It’s an Israel state troll. A broken clock and all that, but don’t encourage it
The term is secure or self-secure.
As in: “it didn’t bother him because he is secure in himself”
Yes, sorry, I made a mistake when linking. The commenter PoolloverNathan left the correct link
I like the tool and am going to keep playing with it, but in my first run I’ve found that it seems to have an issue with the “App Store” vs “terminal command” installation question. My final results, having chosen “terminal commands,” listed some distros as not recommended because of manual install, including arch, gentoo, void, etc. Otherwise big thumbs up
Edited to add: https://distrochooser.de/en/d51d8e6a10f1/ my results
You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. Their CPUs are ARM based, so yes, they can power down more efficiently than x86 and therefore squeeze a bit more battery life. However, they charge $2500 for a $1500 machine and every minor upgrade to them costs wayyyyy more than market value.
Which is fine. Apple can sell whatever product they want and if consumers buy them, then good, people are getting what they want and Apple is profitable. But don’t sit here and tell the world that it’s a “competitive” product. It’s an overpriced, fashionable, niche computer.
Also, the company your looking for alongside intel is AMD
You’re getting tripped up with the words. It could be rephrased to “copying the data.”
The owner doesn’t have any way to access this copied information, but they do have the copy that is on their phone.
The reason the owner isn’t given access to the data is obvious. Because anyone with a brain would immediately delete it, but the car company wants to be able to use it
You are definitely right. I’m a little tipsy but would like to convince myself that I did already know that. I’ll add an edit to my fist comment to alert readers I had it wrong
Edit: I was corrected below, I had it wrong. But I’ll leave my original post unaltered, just know to read further
You’ve got some replies already, but I (not a lawyer) feel like you don’t quite have “entrapment” right.
Entrapment is when an average person might be duped into doing something unlawful in a circumstance where it might appear lawful or at least appear moral to the average person.
I don’t trust this example to hold up entirely, but here is a go at it: hitchhiking is illegal most places in the US, but should an officer pose as a hitchhiker that appears mortally wounded beg for a ride, you pick them up to take to the hospital, then they fine you for picking up a hitchhiker, would constitute as entrapment