Shoplifting and copyright violation are not comparable.
Most of us on this site produce copyrighted works for money. Many of us are pretty knowledgable about how copyright works, as it's an integral part of our livelihood. So please don't try to promulgate that weird media industry propaganda here.
Ah yeah the weird propaganda that people labor to make creative output, and if you value that output and have the means, you should consider paying for it.
Also, read what I wrote: "if you want to pirate, fine, but don't act like you're performing a noble act". What specifically bugs me is less so the act - I assume few among us haven't engaged in illegal streaming, paywall bypassing, password sharing etc. - it's the weird contortions people go through to frame piracy as a noble endeavor vs. just admitting they're being too cheap to pay for something.
But if I understand correctly, you aren't cutting back your dependence on the US. You are cutting back on paying for your dependence. If you really want to cut back, consume non-US media.
They are quite comparable, and it's not media industry propaganda. I'm old enough to remember life before mp3 sharing. The only way to get music was from a CD, bought or stolen. I didn't steal CDs, so when "free" mp3s were available, I didn't take them either.
Commit theft if you want, but be an adult and acknowledge it for what it is.
> Regulations require a bureaucracy in order to be effective.
That's a very European point of view (though not uniquely European, it's also shared across many other cultures, e.g. in East Asia). The US has done pretty well with private rights of action. In fact, because our culture is so conservative and anti-authoritarian, centralized bureaucracies are rather quickly defanged or grossly underfunded. The most recent example is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and more quietly the FTC. Democrats would have done much better to roll back judicial expansion of the Federal Arbitration Act and devolve "regulation" back to states and private class actions, rather than to create the CFPB and elsewhere double-down on anemic, extremely inconsistent, and often highly partisan agency regulators.
Where private rights of action tend to fail is when they concern inchoate or non-individualized harms, like you often see in environmental protection law. Then what you get is complete paralysis, such as with real estate development; largely because its the process, not the end-state determination of rights, that private actors weaponize. But when they're firmly anchored to property rights, personal injury or loss (including fraud), etc, they seem to do as well as centralized regulation. And in the US, they arguably do better, because of our political dynamics.
USA is not anti authoritarian. It is pro-authoritarian and consistently so.
Conservatives are dismantling environmental protection, but it has nothing tondo with freedom or being anto authoritarian. They just dont care about consequences as long as their donors can earn more money in the short term.
Yet also, US seems to be crumbling and rhe source of instability. They may succeed in exporting their dysfunction to Europe, but it did not happened yet.
True, but everything should be done in moderation. We could definitely do without ESG mandates and such, and even the European Commission has publicly recognized the need to debloat the European Union a bit.
The core of the system is simple - you list the third parties you send data to, you make accepting and rejecting equally easy.
Consider basically any popup on a popular website which: takes over most of the screen, makes "accept" the highlighted action button, requires going through "customise" to reject, sometimes requires unchecking categories manually, puts "save and exit" and "accept all" that so the same thing next to each other, either hide or not provide "reject all", etc.
There is no conspiracy here. You can either not use third parties, or if you do, your approval system doesn't have to be obnoxious at all, but almost every page makes it a shitty experience to 1. Make you accept out of frustration. 2. Make your angry that this is asked in the first place.
Why? Companies are regulated all the time. Is deceptive advertising allowed in the US? Didn't think so.[1] Does that violate your First Amendment too?
This case is all about forbidding deceptive practices. Did Twitter's redefinition of blue checkmarks amount to deception? Maybe. There'll be a court case where Twitter get to make their case, if they lose them have to pay the fine. Lay off the pearl clutching.
Having the partial search bound to the up/down arrows is the most fundamental part of the shell for me. I very rarely have to resort to Ctrl-R. Every few weeks I might need a more complex history search, but for that I can just grep in my .zsh_history.
The problem with grep for me is that it's not really interactive. fzf allows me to fuzzy search and adjust the search term and seeing a list with results I then can select from.
I love how the descriptive text specifically calls it an alternative to a deque, but the complexity comparison pointedly does not compare it to a deque.
Are there any reviews of how the actual game plays? This sounds right up my street, but I'd need some idea of what I'm getting before I get my friends to invest their time in playing it.
Most of us on this site produce copyrighted works for money. Many of us are pretty knowledgable about how copyright works, as it's an integral part of our livelihood. So please don't try to promulgate that weird media industry propaganda here.
reply