I associate them with religious pundites and discrimination of payments. A payment is a payment, for christ’s sake! If it’s illegal, report it to the relevant authorities.

Especially a UK one.

With SKG going as well as it is, wouldn’t an ECI on chat control be in order?

Damn. Never knew batteries catch on fire when angry.

For what? Being decent human beings?

And often times it isn’t. In fact, name-brand can ofter be worse for a multitude of reasons.

moral.doctrine@mastercard.com

Since it ‘figerprints’ you, changing your fingerprint by blocking parts of the signal with pieces of foil doesn’t seem like a terrible idea.

Now, the question is: is such a tactic like wearing gloves, or like using super glue?

“Opt out of” or disable/block?

To me, “block” or “disable” seems like it blocks/disables the feature machine-wide, when it just says “pretty please, make me black after you take that screenshot”.

What a title. Made me think installing the browser blocked the feature machine-wide.

Why would anyone care about it being uglier?

It’s WhatsApp. Ugly is their visual identity.

If they changed their app to resemble a neon citylight barely anyone would even notice, let alone complain.

Didn’t they ban NSFW a year ago?

Today “This extension is no longer supported” doesn’t mean there’s something seriously wrong with it, it means “Google doesn’t support the fact you want to use it”.

Exclusive BREAKING NEWS: After careful consideration by the World’s top scientists from 1000+ top Universities, it turns out that WATER, H2O, the Wet Wet is, in fact, wet.

Of course they would. Not only would they get their hands on data users fully voluntarily give them by using their platform, but they’d get their hands on verified IDs and quite reliable family tie information. The potential loss of users is definately worth it for them (from their perspective).

Isn’t that illegal?

The content (i.e. text, tables, images, etc. ) of the book is under copyleft, while the only thing the publisher can argue that’s theirs is the design (cover, font, copyright claim text, etc.) There are things like page layout and stuff that may’ve been created by the author or the publishers so it’s in a grey area.

All in all, I think scanning the book and OCRing it, removing stuff like page numbers and those first few pages of junk would remove all “infringing” elements.

Or, as always, you can email tye author and they’re 99% sure to give you their manuscript directly if they didn’t publish it somewhere else already.

No it doesn’t because all mastodon data is public and does not require ToS agreement to be collected.

ToS are legalese bullshit. They mean next to nothing since most stuff if it comes to court, gets annuled.

ToS kind of does protect you, but holding tge service hostage or not (as in you can’t watch one little youtube video without selling your soul to Google) doesn’t make a big difference - rrasonable expectations are that users own their content (as is the case in youtube’s case - youtube doesn’t ponce on your videos afaik), although they do own rights to distributing it (obviously), and using sane technological measures to prevent what they don’t want. In youtube’s case that’s watching e.g. privated videos, and in another case it can be AI scrapers.

Robots.txt is, just like a ToS, a contract. It just isn’t legalese as it isn’t meant to scare people, but be useful to programmers making the site and those using the scraper. They’re programmers, not marketers or lawyers, of course they won’t deal with legalese if they csn avoid it.

Again, law is not leagese.

A robots.txt file is a contract by use,like when you park in a charge zone - entering the zone, you accept the obigation to pay.

When you scrape a site you first check for robots.txt in all the reasonable places it should be, look for its terms, and follow them… If you don’t want to riskgetting sued.

Similarily, entering a store, you are expected to pay for what you take. There is no entry machine like on a metro where you, instead if swiping a card, read the store’s T&C’s, but know that it’s common sense security will come after you, if not the police. Yet you clicked no “I agree”? How come you don’t just take what you want?

And robots.txt is a mature technology and easily a “standard”. Any competent lawyer will point that out to the jury and judge, who will most likely rule appropristely. The Internet is not the Wild West anymore.

Short answer: the bank won’t give your shiny new tree-planting business a loan as easily as it will to a “liquid tank tree replacement” one.

Long answer:

• Trees take time to grow
• Trees need to be planted
• Trees make shade
• Animals like birds and insects like bees and mosquitos like to live next to them
• Trees don’t need electricity
• Trees take in heat radiated from the pavement
• Trees don’t look cool

While algae are more efficient at turning CO2 into oxygen in theory, in practice algae don’t have a good climate in such a tank (no oxygen without ventilation, i.e. constant electricity and they get cooked through the glass).

All in all, more of a gimmick than anything.