4 ms·

> maximum of one year or more If the max is one year, it can't be more?

Aurornis 1y ago
The maximum value in each instance must be at least one year.
rkomorn 1y ago
It sounds like it's "the maximum penalty must be at least 1 year", as in "your member state can't enact a law where the maximum penalty is less than 1 year". At least that's how I read it, but it's confusing.
- H8crilA 1y ago
  This is correct. But the larger point is that even 1 minute of jail time for such "crimes" is unacceptable.
  - zdragnar 1y ago
    That larger point deserves its own thread. My newest pet peeve is someone jumping into the middle of a conversation with the equivalent of "I don't care about what you're talking about. What I want to talk about is more important". Oh look, now you've got me doing it to you. Drat.
    - the_gipsy 1y ago
      Welcome to Internet Comments.
      - H8crilA 1y ago
        The larger point is that being within a community is quite important, whether you realize it or not.
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    This is correct. But the larger point is that even though you can put pineapple on a pizza, you still shouldn't.
  - bigfudge 1y ago
    You might not like this law (and I'm agnostic on it) but I think the principle that individuals should be held accountable when laws are broken is important. Otherwise we just have token fines and corporate non-compliance because the risks don't outweigh the potential financial benefits. I think people at Experian should have gone to jail, for example, for their incompetence and negligence in regards data breaches.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
      Which people? The responsibility is distributed across hundreds, the decisions that led to the breach were made by committees, etc.
      - bigfudge 1y ago
        The person nominated by that company as their age verification guardian? Or the CEO. Or both. The defence for either could be that they took reasonable steps to know what was going on in their companies or were actively mislead. This isn’t complicated. If it’s the law companies should comply. Fines won’t make a difference to corporate behaviour but this Might.
        NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
        I think that person's title is Designated Patsy. If your idea of justice is them finding someone who's willing to gamble that they won't be called out before their term is up in return for fat paychecks until it happens or they can "move on", I don't think we have compatible senses of justice. >This isn’t complicated. Not only is it complicated, it is deliberately complicated expressly for the purpose of making it impossible for justice to occur.
- philwelch 1y ago
  So it’s a minimum maximum.
- amelius 1y ago
  How would you have read it if it said "with a maximum of one year"?
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    Not sure what exact sentence you're thinking of, but I'd have read the same sentence without "or more" to mean "each member's law should have a max sentence be 1 year" (since the context is describing what each member's law should look like).

The maximum value in each instance must be at least one year.

It sounds like it's "the maximum penalty must be at least 1 year", as in "your member state can't enact a law where the maximum penalty is less than 1 year". At least that's how I read it, but it's confusing.

H8crilA 1y ago
This is correct. But the larger point is that even 1 minute of jail time for such "crimes" is unacceptable.
- zdragnar 1y ago
  That larger point deserves its own thread. My newest pet peeve is someone jumping into the middle of a conversation with the equivalent of "I don't care about what you're talking about. What I want to talk about is more important". Oh look, now you've got me doing it to you. Drat.
  - the_gipsy 1y ago
    Welcome to Internet Comments.
    - H8crilA 1y ago
      The larger point is that being within a community is quite important, whether you realize it or not.
- rkomorn 1y ago
  This is correct. But the larger point is that even though you can put pineapple on a pizza, you still shouldn't.
- bigfudge 1y ago
  You might not like this law (and I'm agnostic on it) but I think the principle that individuals should be held accountable when laws are broken is important. Otherwise we just have token fines and corporate non-compliance because the risks don't outweigh the potential financial benefits. I think people at Experian should have gone to jail, for example, for their incompetence and negligence in regards data breaches.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
    Which people? The responsibility is distributed across hundreds, the decisions that led to the breach were made by committees, etc.
    - bigfudge 1y ago
      The person nominated by that company as their age verification guardian? Or the CEO. Or both. The defence for either could be that they took reasonable steps to know what was going on in their companies or were actively mislead. This isn’t complicated. If it’s the law companies should comply. Fines won’t make a difference to corporate behaviour but this Might.
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
        I think that person's title is Designated Patsy. If your idea of justice is them finding someone who's willing to gamble that they won't be called out before their term is up in return for fat paychecks until it happens or they can "move on", I don't think we have compatible senses of justice. >This isn’t complicated. Not only is it complicated, it is deliberately complicated expressly for the purpose of making it impossible for justice to occur.
philwelch 1y ago
So it’s a minimum maximum.
amelius 1y ago
How would you have read it if it said "with a maximum of one year"?
- rkomorn 1y ago
  Not sure what exact sentence you're thinking of, but I'd have read the same sentence without "or more" to mean "each member's law should have a max sentence be 1 year" (since the context is describing what each member's law should look like).