Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)KH
Posts
1
Comments
419
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Unions don't work without a central state.

    If there isn't an organization larger than a corporation making it keep to a line, a corporation will end up as a monopoly. If a line of work for certain skills is completely monopolized by one company, a union can't ever get bigger than them to enforce anything. Its a stalemate that the company can end by training scabs and a union can't end at all. That's assuming the company doesn't just start murdering Union heads which is probably the first thing they'd start to do without an organization larger than a company to call on.

    Of course, maybe we could unionize everyone into a people's union, for the purposes of having a bigger entity than a corporation that can defend the people. Pay some Union dues to them to get some police-equivalent people to make companies toe the line. But corruption exists and while the USA isn't really for the people today, that is pretty much how the USA started.

    Unions as we know them rely on regulations like anti-monopoly laws to exist.

    Although for the record I don't hate anarcho capitalism, I just think it's more of an ideal. A more realistic but comparable system would include a government to protect union rights and prevent oligarchical behaviors while still being mostly hands off on an industry with a Union, letting the union enforce safety and related guidelines.

  • Yeah in my mind it'd be a "blank-only" gun, a movie prop. Which is well within the budget for movies like this, I mean they have a dedicated armorer. Resizing a barrel isn't uncommon, based on Wikipedia searches, so while it might be a hassle, it could definitely be done within a reasonable timeframe and cost, and avoid any mechanical issues with the gun, but would be pretty high on the list of things a movie would cut corners on if it decided to.

    Which is what I gather happened here, anyway, so maybe this IS standard practice.

  • The right app could make it into a security camera or a WiFi remote. A quick search suggests you could jailbreak it, although I'm not up to date on what that would offer you.

    I'm not sure what prevented Delta from working, since it says it supports iOS 14 or later on an iPod touch. Maybe a factory restore or similar would let you take that route anyway?

  • I don't think its that rare, but its not common. Usually it means that the client is breaching their agreement. Often that breach is in the form of they lied to the lawyer. Lawyers have confidentiality, so the only reasons to lie are external to the case itself.

    Could also mean Lindell stopped paying them, probably for money troubles.

  • It's a bit different because of the stated values though.

    Raspberry pi's foundation is focused on making computers available broadly, while this new organization is focused on making privacy widely accessible.

    While both can be commercialized, the pi's foundation has no fundamental problems with selling out privacy or focusing on money to achieve those goals. Proton would have a much harder time arguing that profiting from sale.of private data supports privacy.

    This is relevant because it means even if the remaining shares end up on the stock market, the foundation can use its majority ownership to veto any privacy concerns.

    Time will tell. I could also have missed something

  • A company with a public offering basically cannot refuse a large enough buyout because with a public offering comes a financial responsibility to the shareholders. Public stock is a contract saying give me money and I'll do my best to make you money back, and it's very legally binding.

    You can avoid this by never going public, but that also means you basically don't get big investors for expanding what you can offer. A public offering involves losing some of your rights as owner for cash.

    When the legal goal becomes "money above all else", it is hard to justify NOT selling all the data and violating the trust of your customers for money, customer loyalty has to be monetizable and also worth more.

    Proton has given a majority share to a nonprofit with a legal requirement to uphold the current values, not make money. This means that the remaining ownership can be sold to whoever, the only way anything gets done is if this foundation agrees. It prevents everything associated with a legal financial responsibility to make money, but still allows the business to do business things and make money, which seems to be proton's founder's belief, that the software should be sold to be sustainable.

  • Seems solid.

    It doesn't change a ton, but the point was basically them putting their money where their mouth is and saying "now we can't sell out like everything else."

    If you liked them before, this is great. It means google or whoever literally can't buy them out, it's not about the money. If you were iffy already because they're not FOSS or whatever other reason, this doesn't change that, either, for better or worse