azuth

Nobody is asking ‘software’ companies to support software they didn’t write.

We are asking hardware companies to support their hardware and not use different software as an excuse not to replace faulty hardware.

They can reflash their own software to test if needed.

Of course hardware vendors could be legally mandated to adhere to standards to make things easier.

Sure attacking Denmark is insane (and will not happen) but the US has a long history of meddling in Panama.

In regards to Panama it’s more of an issue of Trump saying the quit parts loud than a radical departure from normalcy.

But visudo can use any editor if you set SUDO_EDITOR or EDITOR variables. If you don’t want to use vi(m) you should probably set EDITOR in your .bashrc and visudo and probably other programs will use your editor of choice.

If the number of phones is small maybe. Though I doubt they can just throw lithium batteries in a landfill in the EU.

There are manufacturer’s that produce different phones with the same name and different hardware for different regions but I could not find concrete info if there’s actual hardware differences for iphones.

I doubt even Apple is stupid enough to end up with a significant quantity of un-sellable stock just to ‘make a point’. Or that major vendors wound not have an agreement to rtv merchandise they can’t sell after a certain date. Apple will either use them for parts or reflash them if possible to meet different jurisdictions’ regulations and sell them there.

In regards to existing devices continuing to be used being better for the environment, the law allows that (which), it allows lighting cables (or micro-usb) to be continue to be sold so you can keep charging your working device. You won’t however have to buy new cables and chargers for a new device if you already have a usb-c cable (and compatible charger), nor will it have to be bundled with every new device.

The software code issue is out of scope of this law. There are initiatives that do somewhat help with planned obsolescence such as requiring manufacturers to allow app installation from alternative sources. Of course they could go further, such as allowing to boot an alternative OS, or preventing malicious compliance better. But that cannot be criticism of this directive.

It’s not 160 (seconds) it’s 1 (minutes) **:**60 (seconds). My microwave always keeps the : when I input time.

The publication added that CD Projekt cuts jobs at its subsidiary every two to three years, with annual staff turnover reaching around 30%.

As summed up by another former employee, “GOG has been acting well tactically from a financial perspective, but poorly strategically, and the current business model is likely running out of steam.”

So nothing burger? Other than a corpo being anti-worker which is not news…

No they don’t. The 1st amendment only prevents the government from censoring people, not corporations. In fact the 1st amendment protects corporate censoring.

At least it wasn’t an airliner this time.

No, it was not clarified, they vaguely mentioned they were not based in “free speech” US but it’s pretty clear that it was their own policy since they changed it (they do say they were asking mods to ban all mentions of jury nullification).

If their opinion was actually based on law, they would not change their policy. They would probably also have added it to their TOS before hand.

This would only make sense if Nintendo’s legal actions either actually prevented emulation or piracy of their games or recouped the lost revenue (lol).

But they don’t you can still emulate the switch and still get games for it (which was never a grey area unlike emulators). You could do for most of it’s lifetime. You could also pirate on original HW, sometimes without HW modification at all.

Emulators have existed and still exist for older nintendo systems and you can still get old nintendo games despite decades of nintendo’s legal efforts, just like you can get pirated movies or music despite decades of legal efforts…

Fuck off yank

Your parents made you watch a film because they were concerned you could not distinguish reality from fiction?

You are not going to get a sound legal advice on jury nullification in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the concept of a jury.

No shit Sherlock, that’s my argument.

Calling that murky is missing the point.

Nope, the whole point is that LW is mentioning Dutch, German and Finnish law into their defense of banning discussion of jury nullification. As well as differences of EU and US law in regards to hate speech exceptions to the right to free speech (which EU does have).

We do have rules on hate speech, incitement to violence etc. so freedom of speech is not an absolute right

We have laws on banking as well, I am not going to accept your sly attempts to equate jury nullification with hate speech, no matter how many times you try. By the way I don’t think you know what ‘counts’ as hate speech, just saying ‘x deserved to die’ does not cut it, it needs to be related to ethnicity, gender etc.

‘X deserves to die’ might qualify as a threat (if credible) but in our prime (and only, LW only has dealt with jury nullification in regards to the united health case)example X is already dead, they can’t be credible threats.

It’s your opinion that calling for jury nullification constitutes hate speech, in a legal sense for some of the jurisdictions mentioned? Because without that assumption it’s not an article on the exact topic.

More importantly is that the LW admins opinion? They don’t mention hate speech but they mention threats of violence. But their post is ambiguous on what exactly the issue is with advocating for jury nullification.

Nobody is saying a person should be shot. They are saying a jury should not convict the perpetrator even if he is guilty. You are claiming that Dutch law equates the two, despite not being a legal expert.

But that is not even my question, which you cannot answer if you are not related to LW admins or a psychic. Did they base their policy towards jury nullification to legal advice or not? Did they even base it on their own layman understanding of the laws or is it just their discretion?

Their statement is murky, in my opinion purposely so, in order to deflect criticism for their choice to censor posts ‘celebrating’ violence. It’s their right to do so but so is mine and other’s to criticize them for it and especially for presenting it as an issue of lack of free speech in the EU.

You are not answering the question.

You are taking for granted that that advocating for jury nullification is advocating for the actual crime to be committed. But you are not a legal expert.

Is advocating for lower sentences for some crimes illegal? Would calling for legalization of drug use constitute a crime?

That jury nullification does not exist in Dutch law is not in favor of it being interpreted as advocacy t commit a crime.

I wanted to address the LW admins. I can see how it may seems I am asking for everyone’s opinion.

I did not exclude future crimes from my question.

Is your opinion that advocating for jury nullification would constitute some violation of Dutch, Finnish or German law based on legal advice?

It just looks brighter to the point it could be different gamma settings.

There is a bigger brightness range in the top screenshot the bottom looks washed out.