TWeaK @ TWeaK @lemm.ee

Posts

14

Comments

3,713

Joined

2 yr. ago

I dunno, allegedly people actually vote for a man named "Trump".

Those same people are also the lead developers of lemmy.

We can also safely assume they had a very happy life until hammas decided to kidnap them on OCT 7.

Absolutely. However they were kept alive until recently. What happened recently? Israel stepped up its assault. This is a strong correlation.

Does the IDF expect Hamas to just hand over hostages when they come in? If Israel were sincere about their desire to rescue hostages they would be acting differently.

So we can reasonably assume they were alive until the IDF ramped things up in both Gaza and the West Bank.

Because of enshittification lol

It looks like you haven't really digested anything of the conversation here before you came in to reply with corrections.

Not everywhere.

Previous rulings are a precedent in Common Law systems like the US, UK, Canada, or Australia.

Only Supreme Court rulings become a precedent in Civil Law systems like the EU, Russia,most of the rest of America.

Sure, but we're talking about Brazil. You haven't established whether Brazil is common or civil law. Also, we're talking about a Supreme Court ruling.

Not all of the EU is civil law. Ireland and Cyprus both use common law systems.

While common law countries often have roots connected with the UK and are very similar, civil law countries are far more varied. Many civil law countries are distinctly different and arguably should be a separate class of legal structure - even ones with French roots (perhaps the most prominent civil law country).

Ultimately, though, the differences between civil and common law structures are almost entirely technical in nature. The end result is largely the same - in a common law country, case law can continue to be challenged until a Supreme Court ruling, and as such it isn't really proper case law until such a ruling, just like in civil law countries.

https://guides.library.harvard.edu/law/brazil

Brazil is, in fact, a civil law country. However, they do follow case law from Supreme Court, which would make this ruling about requiring a representative valid case law. Which is what I said to OP.

The EU at its top level creates "Directives"

This is exactly what I said.

The EU made GDPR law (well, strictly speaking they made a directive, then member states make laws that must meet or exceed that directive)

The EU made a directive, this directive led to GDPR laws made by member states. However I was apparently mistaken, it wasn't an EU Tribunal court case that led to cookie splash screens through case law, it was Recital 66 (lol Order 66), essentially a 2009 modification to the 2002 ePrivacy Directive, followed by roundtable discussions that heavily favoured the advertising industry over civil interest groups leading to its formal implementation into the directive in 2012.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/truth-behind-cookie-banners-alexander-hanff-cipp-e-cipt-fip-

To summarise:

• What I said at the start was right - Brazil's Supreme Court ruling requiring social media companies to have representatives is valid case law.
• My example of cookie splash screens wasn't ideal, but you did not give the right reasoning, or any reasoning - it was a poor analogy because it wasn't a judge's rulinig that modified the law but legal discussions that were prompted by public interest groups.

Like I say, it really feels like you didn't read very far before you made your reply. Your comment reads more as a statement of tangentially related things you know with a thin veil disguising it as a correction. If you'd just made those statements without the veil, or if you'd followed through with the corrections and actually explained what was wrong, I don't think I would have found your reply so objectionable (although I may also have woken up on the wrong side of the bed to your comment, sorry about that).

But then, I also wouldn't have looked into the specifics of Brazilian law or the full origins of cookie splash screens, so thanks for the motivation lol.

It's one of the OG ones, ass-car: https://xkcd.com/37/

Yes and no. It only really applies to Twitter/X and Twitter clones. You wouldn't call a Facebook post a tweet, no matter how short, nor would you call a reddit or lemmy post/comment that.

And even then, Mastadon has its own term, toots, and BlueSky calls them skeets.

Until Twitter comes up with a new name in line with their new branding, I think the business should still be referred to as Twitter. But the business should go bankrupt before that happens, hopefully, the lenders need to call in their debts already.

No worries, your comment was at least a little more than just a hollow "source?", as you stated what you were unsure about, so I gave an explanation of why the connection would be feasible.

It also isn't really my job to prove my comment, this isn't a place where people write academic papers that must be cited, it's casual internet conversation. We're all on an equal playing field. You have just as much of an obligation to disprove my comment as I have to prove it.

If I give detailed reasoning, that's a form of evidence, and you should at least provide counter-reasoning instead of just disregarding it because I haven't spoonfed you a source. Not that it seems like you completely disregarded it, but you did latch onto the fact that I didn't do a search on your behalf.

Appologies if I'm still coming off as a little hostile, it isn't personal, this is just something that really bugs me about online chat - when someone puts effort in and then others dismiss it without putting any effort in themselves.

The service has been tested in late 2023 and proven working, at least while the satellites are overhead (at the time there were fewer that had the capability). Starlink also have partnerships with various telecoms companies in countries over the world - the technology will essentially relay from ground based towers on their network to the user via the satellites. They also have no issue turning the system off when they need to as satellites pass over territories, as they have demonstrated over various warzones. However, such a facility could easily be configured to turn on, and even without an agreement from a telecoms company there's no reason they couldn't be run unauthorised, like a Stingray phone tracker. This is the issue I'm raising, one that I don't think anyone else is really talking about yet.

Here's an article from 2 days ago that shows the service is already operational for emergency calls in the US: https://www.econotimes.com/Starlinks-Direct-to-Cell-to-Launch-Free-Global-Emergency-Services-with-T-Mobile-1685521 That was the first result in the news banner in a search for "Starlink direct to cell". Like I say, it really isn't hard to find the information you're looking for.

Ah I wasn't aware of that shortcut, one of the main reasons DDG wasn't working for me was because I thought I could only do !g and then go to the Google page, and Google had been making it more difficult to go from the main search page to Maps.

Not that I'm aware of. Your best bet is to save the post and come back later, or if you're in a browser leave the tab open in the background.

The page you link to talks about the search results that come at the top of the page, eg a Wikipedia or Trip Advisor result. The actual search itself comes from Bing, and it's more than likely that the top page banner also is processed via Bing.

Edit: However, the Wikipedia page does provide more detail, which proves you right and my assumption wrong:

DuckDuckGo's results are a compilation of "over 400" sources according to itself, including Bing, Yahoo! Search BOSS, Wolfram Alpha, Yandex, and its own web crawler (the DuckDuckBot); but none from Google. It also uses data from crowdsourced sites such as Wikipedia, to populate knowledge panel boxes to the right of the search results.

If I understand DDG correctly, they use Microsoft Bing as their backend for search results. So while they may be branded DDG, the results are in fact out of DDG’a control. It also means we are more subject to Microsoft’s privacy policy than we are to DDG’s.

This is exactly right. DDG is basically a front end that's supposed to strip out identifying information and then submit your request to Microsoft. [Edit:] Apparently they have expanded from this, according to their Wikipedia page. [/E]

However, after seeing TV ads for DDG not that long ago I kind of lost what faith I had left in them. As a rule of thumb, I've never trusted products and services advertised on TV - TV advertising is expensive, and the business expects to make that expense back and then some from their customers.

DuckDuckGo is also feeding your search terms into AI development now. I've tried it again recently but prefer Ecosia, at least Ecosia lets me more easily get to Google Maps when I want to, rather than trying to push Apple Maps.

They have at least moved away from the twitter.com URL, up until then it was hard to argue that it wasn't still Twitter. However, until they come up with a new name for "tweets" I think the original name should still stand.

Law isn't defined just by legislation, it is also defined by case law. A judge's ruling on a previous case makes that ruling law.

Now, I'm not saying this ruling is appropriate - I simply don't know enough about how it came to be. But if Brazil made laws about social media companies and then a judge made a ruling based on that law requiring social media companies have a representative, then that absolutely is valid law.

To draw an example, the EU never made a law about cookie splash screens. The EU made GDPR law (well, strictly speaking they made a directive, then member states make laws that must meet or exceed that directive), and then a judge interpreted that law and made it a requirement to have cookie splash screens. I would personally argue that the judge was trying to shove a square peg through a round hole there, when really he should have identified that data collection is in fact a secondary transaction hidden in the fine print (rather than an exchange of data for access to the service, this isn't how the deal is presented to the user; the service is offered free of charge but the fine print says your data is surrendered free of charge), and he should have made it such that users get paid for the data that's being collected. However, the judge's ruling stands as law now.

I've already put a lot more effort in the discussion than you have. Is it too much for you to just search for it yourself?

https://direct.starlink.com

Booo, someone already stole my username :(

If they didn't have the range for that you wouldn't be able to connect with them to send calls, text, or data. Those are all two way communication and requires the satellite to be within range of your device.

Now, there's something to be said for the current level of coverage of direct-to-cell capable satellites. If they don't have many up there then it will be harder to triangulate - however they also move quite quickly through their orbits, so if they make multiple measurements they can get a good idea with just one satellite, and again the accuracy will only go up when more satellites are in range.

One article I read last July said they only had 103 satellites with that capability up, with plans to launch a further 300 this year (out of a total constellation of 6,200). However I've read other sources from last year about much higher numbers. I suspect the 103 refers to a newer version of direct-to-cell capable satellites that will form the commercial implementation.

As for the range of the signal from the satellite, it absolutely can reach your device. GPS is an awful lot higher, and with satellites in general you don't have to worry about people being nearby to the radiation source (like you do with phones or even towers). There isn't a risk of location or identification with a one way signal from a satellite, though, however if your device were to do something in response to the signal that could be an issue (eg [ab]using the emergency alert system or some sort of novel exploit).

Suffice it all to say, we're entering an age where there is the potential for a lot of shit to happen, stuff that hasn't really even been explored in SciFi or spy movies. In the late 90s we had Enemy of the State, which touched on satellites being used for stuff, but as far as I'm aware no fiction has explored using the satellites for two-way communication with our devices. People think of satellites being 600,000km away, not merely ~500km.

Lmao they release aluminum oxides when they burn up, it's basically antipersperant in the upper atmosphere.

Ironically though, it will make us all sweat more.