DreamlandLividity @ DreamlandLividity @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

589

Joined

2 yr. ago

First of all, the article clearly states Fidelity owns shares, hence it is not fully private. Second of all, you are talking about the assessment of the company that holds the shares. Are you suggesting an honor system where everyone estimates their own wealth?

Here is a conspiracy theory for you. This bullshit is pushed by the people not wanting meaningful reform. Just like oil companies try to distract with Carbon capture.

"We need this simple reform." "No, we need Communist revolution! Eat the rich!”

So what I am hearing: buy shit in a different country than the one you are running, where you can't tax it. No investment and jobs for your economy.

Also, how do you determine the value of an ltd? Not all companies have shares and share price.

Well, I think the courts should strike it down because:

1. It is content based speech regulation (Chinese influence on people), which deserves strictest scrutiny under the 1st amendment.
2. It targets TikTok by name, which triggers equal protection issue. Congress is not allowed to pass a law that specifically bans Tom Holland from smoking. Laws need to be general. I don't see why this would be an exception.

Sorry if it sounded like I did not think TikTok is used for espionage. I am sure it is, just like Google, Facebook, etc. are used by the NSA (thanks Snowden for giving us proof of this). Its just funny to me that the US gov has to resort to banning it, because they spent years convincing people Tech Giants spying on them is ok. And now when they say don't use TikTok, everyone laughs at them.

You really think the interests of some country half a world away are more dangerous to you than that of companies trying to exploit you in your own country? The politicians trying to control you without pesky things as protests and elections? ;)

So its not an issue if american companies destabilize democracy? Just foreign ones?

As opposed to every other social media? If they want to protect privacy, Congress is allowed to pass privacy laws that apply to all companies. They are not allowed to single just one out.

On the grounds that they are not breaking it up because it has monopoly but because they don't like it can be used for Chinese propaganda. Which is limiting speech.

Also, they require it to be sold to non-chinese buyer, which is discriminatory.

Ahh, I missed that. Sorry. Makes it even more ridiculous the Israel aid passed.

The article "forgets" to mention the "foreign aid package" also contains billions to support "totally not a Genocide" commiting regime of Israel.

I am not sure I would vote for it myself and I definitely support Ukraine.

I for one don't know how many astronauts are being sent to the moon when. And if most people do, no point writing this article, is there?

Its even more misleading that you would count the fossil fuels used by other companies towards the producer. You can't decrease the emissions by doing anything about these companies (without collapsing the whole economy), you need to transition the consumers to different energy sources.

It is like saying the Water companies are responsible for 100% of water usage...

Yes, so we are talking about a sentence in the headline where we don't have extra context, yet you make an sentence where it is clear the sentence is stupid based on outside context and argue it should be interpreted the other way around because otherwise we know it is stupid. Amazing logic.

Just because I can deduce what you actually meant does not mean the sentence is correct.

No. The sentence you posted implies a football match was never before attended by any person.

If you want to say one of many, you should say Some person/someone.

Or you can qualify the person. E.g. A non-american astronaut will be landing on the moon for the first time.

It says "an astronaut is landing on the moon" implying there is only one on this mission.

I am not an expert but I don't think a modem has anything to do with registering the e-sim.

Even if it did, the hard part is probably getting the e-sim data/keys to be registered, not the uploading it to the e-sim chip itself.

I am not treating them as irrelevant, hence a password manager. But I am not treating it as fort knox. Most of my real-life friends probably don't even go that far.

Well, this is a bit tricky to answer:

1. The e-sim in a phone is a separate chip with proprietary firmware. The chances of a FOSS version of this HW are nearly nonexistent. It would require developing your own silicon and putting it into your own phones. Chances of FOSS FW for this proprietary HW are also very small, because it is difficult and there is not much reason to do so.
2. Currently, registering an e-sim requires a proprietary app (usually google). There is no FOSS alternative. Work on one is slow and there are some IP issues.
3. Using an e-sim does not require a proprietary app. So you can remove google services or remove their access to the e-sim HW once you have it registered. GrapheneOS uses this.