Tariffs in general aren’t new, but Trump’s tariffs were applied haphazardly and poorly determined because he doesn’t understand what they are. Avoiding that uncertainty entirely is a good idea.

That won’t stop them either. They’ll just use it anyway. These companies never delete anything they might be able to use. At least not willingly.

You think that will stop them? They’ll just do it and pay a comparatively small fine to the government in a decade after they get around to investigating it. And that’s the best case scenario. More realistically nothing will ever happen.

For all we know it could have been requested years ago by developers who have apps that get pirated but there was no mechanism in place to implement it at the time, and wasn’t a priority.

Just because it’s beneficial to Google maintaining more direct control now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that’s the origin.

This has almost nothing to do with Google, it’s a feature that has to be enabled by the app developer. Meaning they want to exclude users getting the APK for their app from elsewhere.

Anything car related with BT is almost always the car’s fault. They use shit hardware and don’t care about the software because no one can do anything about it. No one is picking their car based on the BT support.

Put the newest intern in charge for a year. They couldn’t do much worse than the last 4 CEOs, and would be much cheaper.

I pay for Premium for a few different reasons:

1. I don’t need to even think about fighting with ad block blockers.
2. I also get YouTube Music, so I no longer need to pay for Spotify.
3. Premium views pay creators more than regular views.

Yeah no worries.

The issue is that as rules get more specific, those types of users/trolls go out of their way to skirt around the edges as closely as possible without breaking them, and usually very vocal about not breaking the rule in the process.

On the flip side, vague rules means moderation can be viewed as simultaneously both heavy and light handed depending on perspective.

I wasn’t directing it at you specifically, just a general commentary about the pseudo-anonymity that many internet commenters feel they have and the resulting attitudes and responses because of that. The core reason for vague generalized rules like Rule 1 is because people will be dicks, just because they can. And that manifests in hundreds of different ways that are hard to account for in a general community rule structure beyond something simple like, don’t be a dick.

Or, just don’t be a dick. Something many users have a fundamental issue with from my experience over the last 25+ years online.

Rule 1 is: Be nice and have fun.

Definitely censorship there. I’d add more, but that would violate rule 1.

So instead… I hope you have the day you deserve.

Is Elon gonna sue the World Bank now?

It’s because the politicians make the laws. And they want their judges on the bench to rule in their favor. Laws forcing judges to recuse don’t help the politicians ignore the laws they find inconvenient.

This is what I did after running consumer Linksys and ASUS routers, including with OpenWRT.

I moved to a Unifi setup and haven’t had any issues. I can manage it remotely if I need to, like another household member needs something changed or fixed. I’ve never had to restart it to fix an issue, it just works.

Easy upgrades without having to replace the entire setup and move settings over manually. Especially easy wireless upgrades, almost just plug and play replacing the old access point antenna.

And if you need just a small setup and you run a home server you can run the management software on there instead of something like their dedicated Cloud Key device.

Almost everyone has access to a phone. Most governments, including the US provide free or low cost smartphones to those who can’t afford it. There are entire MVNO carriers based around this, like Assurance wireless.

I’d say social media platforms are an entire different beast.

Facebook is not the same as Facebook Messenger for instance.

Legitimate countries don’t need to ban communications platforms.

They’d never even hear it. To give this lawsuit any credibility, they’d have to effectively say that businesses spending/donating money is not free speech. Which would effectively be the opposite of Citizens United.

It’s also common to re-evaluate business deals after major acquisitions. Musk buying Twitter dramatically changes the business perception, and that’s what matters to advertisers. Twitter can’t even begin to try and claim it doesn’t, just look at Musk’s tweets leading into it and directly after. The entire purpose of his purchase was to fundamentally change it, he said so himself.