gian @ gian @lemmy.grys.it

Posts

0

Comments

446

Joined

2 yr. ago

That is true in US. In EU litigations cost are way lower and a single person could sue, win and not be financially broken.

Problem is only that in any case what you pay for a lawyer is more than you win, so it make no sense to sue in any case.

What existing rules? The rules designed for 19th/20th century oil companies that don’t apply to modern tech companies?

They can be old and technically it can be a stretch to apply them to a tech company, but they are still here.

New rules are being written.

That's good

Apple could play in the game with a different set of rules

They’re playing a different game because they’re the ones who built the ballpark they’re playing in. Don’t like the game? Don’t go to the ballpark.

As long as the ballpark is not a problem for other people, ok. But if the ballpark is a problem for the people playing...

It’s so exhausting how you people simply can’t accept “don’t buy Apple” and leave it alone

"Don't buy Apple" is not a giustification for Apple to do something that is illegal, at least from the DOJ point of view.

Cheapest iPhone is $430.

A ruggered Android phone cost about 200 € and there are also under 100 € android phones.

As a first phone for a kid is more than enough, given how it will be treated

Damn, a security researcher discovered what was known from late 1990's/early 2000's: a link on a webpage could take you in a place that it is not the one the link say it will be.

A symptom of our declining society is expecting people or businesses to accommodate your personal interests instead of you making an adult decision.

A symptom of your declining society is expecting that the rules in place could be ignored.

It is true, nobody is forced to buy an iPhone but this not means that Apple could play in the game with a different set of rules from everyone else.

Actually it coincided with IPX rating for smartphones. The last headphone jack smartphones did not have water resistance, but the newer models did. People voted for a more sealed phone with their wallets.

My rugged phone is IP68 but it has Usb C connector and SIM/SD tray, so adding a headphone jack while having an IPX rating seems not impossible.

A more logical way would be to tax a car based on how many km/miles it travels in a year, at least partially.

I bet that my 1.5 tons car travelling 10.000 Km/year ruins the street a lot less than my neighbor's 1 tons car that travel 30.000 Km/year

That is true also for fossil-fuel

Wait, I was talking about the fact that most EU bank (if not all) need to have a two factor authentication system in place, which limit a lot what a scammer can do.
In this case I think that a scam like this would not be possible or at least it would be stopped in the moment the bank app would ask to confirm what I am supposedly doing.

A national digital ID system is nice (in Italy we have the SPID), but it does not limit anything if you really can do everything with just the credid card number.

I think this is true in most of the EU banks.

In EU the next time the law changes 😁

Well, I said maybe is not physically possible, not that this is the cause.

But still, even being a separate piece of hardware does not make automatically possible to change it with a newer one.

What you say about the subscription model is true, but I don't think this is the case. They simply went with the network that at the time had the biggest area covered, which would probably was 2G. (and it seems that they also used more recent modems in later models)

They simply, correctly, decide that having the widest area possible covered now is better than to have to maybe shutdown some services at a not yet known future time.

True, but maybe not physically possible. I doubt that the 2G module is a separate piece of hardware

It is wrong, because it’s makes it uncomfortable for women to be in power, or in the public eye. Every time we allow it, it normalizes the problem, and perpetuates it.

I don't really think that woman in power positions or in the public eye are that easily offended by a compliment (or an insult).

She’s out there trying to make it harder for governments and corporations to abuse our personal data. We want to uplift THAT message, not reduce it to a discussion about her appearance.

I get that. I only said that maybe to call misogyny a compliment on the look of a woman on top of all her other qualities maybe it too much. "she is really smart" and "she is nice looking" are not mutually exclusive in a discussion.

I agree he said it in the wrong way, but is now misogyny to acknoledge that in addition to being really smart she is also a nice looking woman ?

Frankly, seeing how you people are treated as a employees or as a customers, sometimes I doubt it...

In EU they are unenforcable because they are illegal.

Only where going to court could bankrupt you.

I think this is true in any civil country...