This means we entered a new era. I like this era.

It's devastating that this is one of only a few times cops might actually be held accountable.

You're 100% right. The supreme Court ruled on the duty to protect and on qualified immunity, the only way the state could get a verdict is if it's very narrowly tailored to either "extremely egregious and inhumane behavior" or for "stopping the parents". There's no other way for a judge to make a guilty verdict and at the same time make it appeal-proof to some degree.

And we just gotta hope and pray this gets through and doesn't get overturned.

Which is the only legal remedy you'll ever get against qualified immunity btw. There has to be a specific procedure for this that has been unmistakenly violated.

There's exactly two purposes: auto updates for drivers and a user interface to quickly install and uninstall drivers.

The cons include that there's annoying banners everywhere, the drivers itself are the same that you'll find on their website, you need to create an account for Nvidia, and they will harvest you data (most likely).

Pick your poison xd

So let me get this straight, it's not bribery because they had written contracts and it was afterwards? So if I let an official make investments into my company on behalf of me and I gave him money for it, it's only a problem if I gave him money before or I had no contract to show for it.

That is such a bonkers distinction I really wanna see how the fuck they define if the contract for the legal bribery is sufficient or not. Does it need a stamp? What the fuck

As a German, the contrast in education and training for police is unfathomable. Yes, we still have a problem with some cops being Nazis, but cops don't kill people because "I was scared" here. They usually kill them after an act of terrorism that killed a lot more people, or if they had a standoff for like 2h and the guy has a gun.

Which absolutely is the better way.

But ofc, banning guns is really helpful in the first place, because wouldn't you know, banning a killing device rapidly decreases the amount of killings. Funny how that works. I would even argue it's cause and effect and not just coincidental.

I wanna see the evidence and the law in this case

This is gonna be interesting af

Free education? Hell yeah brother!

Yeah maybe that could work. I definitely agree that there's ways to get good anchor points. Maybe through cross-check with wireless networks even.

But wouldn't you scramble the precision with that? Stations can be quite big and anchoring to the station location means you already start with an offset to your location.

Depending on the accuracy over time, they could pinpoint a location while the user is sleeping and than use that as an anchor for the day.

But everything about that is speculative; let's see where this goes first.

Yeah been following the rust cases closely.

Kari Morrissey was the one who secured the conviction for Hannah Gutierrez Reid.

Important things to note for Alec Baldwin's case: he's got more money and resources for his defense. There's a bunch of high class attorneys that entered appearance for Baldwin. But he has 2 major problems: those attorneys are not from new Mexico. A good lawyer knows the law and a great lawyer knows the judge. Additionally, he is known for being bad at safety and security. That was already becoming clear in HGR's trial. But legally things are bad as well: he held the weapon. Now in other states that doesn't make him more culpable than HGR, but in new Mexico basically everyone holding a weapon is held accountable for the consequences of whatever they do while holding the weapon. This, together with what I would predict are looking like pretty bad facts for him rn, is an indication that he has a steep climb to make, unless Morrissey fucks up in a major way.

I already commented this on another post about chat control but I still stand by what I said before so imma be a dick and put the original comment here as well:

Imagine there's one phone type with one security level. And now they introduce a second phone. It has less security. Now everyone has to switch to the weaker phone.

Soooo, now who gets the stronger phones? Government employees? The military? Politicians? Agencies?

The less the strong phones you give out, the more authoritarian the measure. But the more the strong phones you give out, the higher the chance of misuse or mishandling. You will now have a black market for secure phones, giving them out to criminals. You will now have people with strong phones having a higher right of privacy, giving them more protection against the state itself.

Now let's add more factors. Someone loses their stronger phone. We now have a potentially untraceable strong phone. The government is losing control over those. Now you have 5 different tiers of secure phones. But people are people and the more complicated, the more things can go wrong. Now let's add in slightly more authoritarian states like Hungary. There's a good chance they will instantly start spying on journalists. Or give opposition parties the weaker phones by accident.

Now add in foreign agencies. China's digital government agencies are very efficient. Imagine they get the keys to the weaker phones. Great, now China can effectively monitor 99% of the EU. And now even if an EU member has a strong phone, they just listen in his wife's phone, and they get the information anyway. Now what about if a spy from North Korea gets the keys and starts finding bank information on the stronger phones? They now have new super annoying ways of stealing billions of dollars from the EU and covertly as well if they do it right.

As you can see, making some people's security weaker on purpose is a lose lose game. It never works. There's way too many cooks in the kitchen in the EU for this kind of stuff to stay in line, and there WILL be misuse, one way or the other.

Wrong way around. The law doesn't decide how we feel, the law is written after society.

If people think something is really bad objectively, then politicians create laws.

So first we need to decide how we feel, then politicians create laws on that. In Europe, countries tend to be more privacy and security first, and that's why a lot of them already have stricter rules in place.

And Meta also doesn't tell us how to think, they just tell us how they treat our posts, and the rest is up to lawyers if it comes to a specific dispute.

You don't have to agree with laws ever. But for the meantime, you do have to follow them.

You wouldn't disappoint a paper.

And you wouldn't download a car.

How the f do you even start killing people for this? I mean the PR crisis that follows an assassination makes everything way worse doesn't it?

You can equally find both things wrong. This is not a "either Scholz is wrong or the AfD is corrupt". There's more parties than SPD and AfD. In fact, that's what the system is built on.

Imagine there's one phone type with one security level. And now they introduce a second phone. It has less security. Now everyone has to switch to the weaker phone.

Soooo, now who gets the stronger phones? Government employees? The military? Politicians? Agencies?

The less the strong phones you give out, the more authoritarian the measure. But the more the strong phones you give out, the higher the chance of misuse or mishandling. You will now have a black market for secure phones, giving them out to criminals. You will now have people with strong phones having a higher right of privacy, giving them more protection against the state itself.

Now let's add more factors. Someone loses their stronger phone. We now have a potentially untraceable strong phone. The government is losing control over those. Now you have 5 different tiers of secure phones. But people are people and the more complicated, the more things can go wrong. Now let's add in slightly more authoritarian states like Hungary. There's a good chance they will instantly start spying on journalists. Or give opposition parties the weaker phones by accident.

Now add in foreign agencies. China's digital government agencies are very efficient. Imagine they get the keys to the weaker phones. Great, now China can effectively monitor 99% of the EU. And now even if an EU member has a strong phone, they just listen in his wife's phone, and they get the information anyway. Now what about if a spy from North Korea gets the keys and starts finding bank information on the stronger phones? They now have new super annoying ways of stealing billions of dollars from the EU and covertly as well if they do it right.

As you can see, making some people's security weaker on purpose is a lose lose game. It never works. There's way too many cooks in the kitchen in the EU for this kind of stuff to stay in line, and there WILL be misuse, one way or the other.

What a bullshit law. If things have flaws, they don't just have flaws for the benefit of police or government agencies. They have flaws for anyone that knows them or discovers them. This stuff will still be accessible for smart criminals, even more so in corrupt governments.

An encryption with exploits is not an encryption, it's a time bomb and it will blow up in your face at the worst moment.

Having stakes in a conflict really tints your perspective even for those respectable organizations... That's annoying.

I noticed the same with aljazeera. They are regarded as really good neutral journalists on a whole list of topics. I honestly didn't expect a very foreign news organization to have such nuanced takes, but they consistently made a better job in their reporting than a lot of US or EU journalists. But when it came to something they are involved in, you can see their neutral reporting slowly decay - it's sad to watch.