Presidents have immunity? Cool. Biden, time to order a hit on Trump.

Bruh I’m comfortable building my own PCs and that still sounds way more effort than just buying an external optical drive with USB interface.

• Tor, from Old English torr, meaning hill.
• Pen, from Celtic *penn, meaning hill.
• How, from Danish hoh, meaning hill.
• Hill, from English hill, meaning hill.

^{Unfortunately, it’s not actually a real official name for a hill, though it could be…}

What is the difference between a hesitation and a censure?

Part of being a monopoly is being anticompetitive

No it’s not. Being hit with antitrust laws requires first being a monopoly, but the monopoly state exists merely by virtue of size within the industry.

Edit: to be clear the only point I am making here is in relation to that definition you provided. Nothing more.

Apple tried this with the EU usb c but eventually backed down

Umm, what? Apple was always going to move to USB-C. The EU regulations at most hastened that by a couple of years. Their tablets and even laptop computers were using USB-C before the EU even enacted that legislation. It was only a matter of time.

But back on the subject at hand, this is nothing like that sort of bullying. This is a company being asked to build more infrastructure at their own expense, and then use that infrastructure to place its own users at risk. They’ve made a simple calculation that it’s better for their bottom line and their reputation to choose not to comply, and instead pull out of a few small markets.

There isn’t even a way to trust a 3rd party to verify someone’s age.

It depends what you mean by this. If you mean in terms of a way to trust that the third party is doing its job correctly, that’s as simple as using the government itself to do the verification after seeing some proof of age.

If you mean in terms of privacy, you can’t protect the privacy of the fact that someone got verified, but you can protect the privacy of their browsing after the fact. It’s a neat cryptographic trick called blind signatures. The end result is a token that the user holds which they can hand over to websites that tells the website “a trusted third party has verified I’m over 18” but would not have to reveal any more information about them than that. But even if the government was that trusted third party, and they asked the websites to hand over all their logs, the government would still not be able to trace your views back to you, because the token you hold is one they never saw.

This is, in my opinion, still a bad idea. I am in no way advocating for this policy. There’s still the mere fact that you have to go up to someone and basically register yourself as a porn viewer, which is fucked up. Maybe if these tokens were used in other ways, like instead of showing your licence at bars, it could be less bad (though there are other practical reasons I don’t think that would work) because the tokens could be less directly associated with porn. But it’s still an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Not to mention the cost that adding all this would put on the government—or, if they charge for these tokens, the people using it—for what actual gain, exactly?

I’m merely pointing out that from a purely technical perspective, this is quite different from when governments request back doors into chat encryption. This actually can be done. It just shouldn’t, for non-technical reasons.

Oh yeah I know it’s theoretically possible. I’ve just never heard of it actually being done, for payments specifically, by banks. Using Google Pay doesn’t restrict you from also using any of those other use cases: you’re not giving anything up in terms of flexibility of functionality.

Yeah Garmin Pay is the equivalent on Garmin smartwatches. Unfortunately it’s not as widely supported by banks (at least where I live) as Google and Apple Pay are.

I believe it’s a reference to Korea’s plummeting fertility rate, which currently sits at the lowest birth rate in the world, at less than 1 child per woman.

If you go over the limit they ask you to confirm in a way that requires the phone anyway

Oh interesting. Where I am if you go over the limit (usually $100), you just have to input your PIN. But $100 is enough to get up to some serious trouble, considering it’s a per-purchase limit.

And I’ve both never heard of banks using the NFC directly (as opposed to using Google, Apple, Garmin etc. Pay), and wouldn’t trust them in the slightest with it even if they did offer it, because they’re not exactly known for great security. (And I’ll take security over privacy any day.)

It’s still safer. They can steal your wallet and pay for anything trivially. If they steal your phone, they have to be able to unlock it to pay with it.

They actually run it every year. The Spartathlon. The course record is just under 20 hours total (including rest) (men), and the slowest ever podium placement was still just 35:31 (including rest) (women).

The common story is “he ran from Marathon to Athens to alert Athens of the Greek victory at the Battle of Marathon, and promptly died after doing so”.

The reality is that before the battle, he ran the much longer distance from Athens to Sparta over 2 days to ask for Spartan aid in the upcoming battle. Sparta said they would help, but could not leave for a few days due to religious reasons (I’ve seen some sources cite a religious festival, and others say it was because they could only set out under a full moon). So Philippides then ran back to Athens to tell them. Sparta would not arrive until after the battle, but Athens won anyway.

There are some claims that then Philippides ran back to Athens as per the common story, but these are attested much later and so are likely untrue.

The story of Philippides is the rare example where the myth is actually toned down compared to reality. Absolutely brilliant story.

I do think that the idea of judicial review itself makes sense. After all, what’s the point of a constitution if the legislature can just makes laws that go directly against it? The problem, in my view, is that the constitution covers too many things, and does so in far too unspecific terms, which makes for an incredibly broad range of possible political interpretations.

One take I’ve seen some Australian lawyers suggest is that the extent of politicisation of America’s Supreme Court is an inevitable result of how highly political their constitution is.

In Australia, our constitution deals with the basic functioning of government; how elections take place, who can vote, and mostly fairly boring procedural stuff like that.

America’s constitution quite famously lays out a number of very specific rights. Rights that are, by their very nature, quite politiciseable and open to interpretation. If SCOTUS is able to invent rights that they claim are implied by the written text, with the legislature unable to legislate around it, that’s a problem. It becomes even more of a problem when SCOTUS decides they can infer rights that are implied by those rights which SCOTUS themselves inferred. Deciding what rights people have—or removing those rights—should be the job of democratically elected representatives, not political appointees. So the court granting a right to abortion because they say it’s implied that you have this right based on the right to privacy (quite a large stretch, IMO), and that right to privacy being implied by your explicit right to due process (a more reasonable inference), is quite a silly arrangement. Better for the legislature to simply do their job.

Not that this is in any way “simple”. It would require a complete ground-up rewrite of the American constitution. And that’s obviously never going to happen.

He’s unlikely to go to gaol for this particular set of crimes even without getting special treatment. He’d be looking at a maximum of 4 years (per count, but I suspect those would probably be served concurrently), but as another article about the subject said:

But Trump is unlikely to be sentenced to prison, experts say. He is a first-time offender, and the crime he has been found guilty of is a non-violent paper crime.

Interesting. This is certainly not the first time there have been markdown parsing inconsistencies between clients on Lemmy, the most obvious example being _subscript and ^superscript, especially when ~multiple words~ ^get used^ or you use ^reddit ^style ^(superscript text).

But yeah, checking just now on Jerboa you’re right, it does display correctly the way you did it. I first saw it on the web in lemmy-ui, which doesn’t display it properly, unless you use the triple backticks.

Wtf kind of Randian hellscape nonsense is this? They should be allowed to charge double to exploit people who are already disadvantaged by the way other companies are treating them? Fuck this nonsense.

Go create your own bear-infested village somewhere nobody with any morals has to live near you. But this time do it from scratch rather than ruining things for the people already living there.

line 2
    return False
    ^^^^^^
IndentationError: expected an indented block after function definition on line 1