8372049

8 ms·

31.
by 8372049 2y ago
Private mode has very little impact on what you share with the world/through the network. It's there to keep your browsing private from people you live with etc., not from anyone else.
32.
by 8372049 2y ago
While I agree with the general sentiment, I think the problem in this specific case is lack of job security in the US. In most European countries getting fired for something like this would never fly.
33.
by 8372049 2y ago
20 years ago, legal firms sending out threatening letters to people they could identify on torrent trackers was commonplace.
34.
by 8372049 2y ago
I'm not sure you're hallucinating. The dictionary I checked lists the printing and journalism terms separately. It's quite possible they have diverging etymologies, meaning both can be correct: 5. Print. a. a thick strip of
35.
by 8372049 2y ago
Having come from a military background where using that is second nature, I'm constantly surprised how rarely I meet civilians who understand it effortlessly. When picking up a package I say "the code is Oscar Foxtrot three-fife&q
36.
by 8372049 2y ago
i, L and o are left out of the alphabet in the snippet, so there's not really any ambiguity.
37.
by 8372049 2y ago
> We have a right to repair and always had, as said. You don't have a right to repair if you can't access the required docs, tools, spare parts or if there are unreasonable conditions if you do so. I know a lot of John Deere cu
38.
by 8372049 2y ago
It's reasonable if you have fiddled and broken something , but a catch-all if you touch it then you lose all rights is not reasonable.
39.
by 8372049 2y ago
Having a "right" to repair something doesn't really mean much if the vendors can legally keep documentation and spare parts from you, does it? The point is that this law does not give you any more rights on that matter, it on
40.
by 8372049 2y ago
My point is that this law grants rights to professional repairmen/service providers, not to consumers (or anyone else).
41.
by 8372049 2y ago
I am not a lawyer, and definitely not a EU law lawyer, but e.g. in the copyright law, it states that the right to dynamically reverse engineer a program can not be given up through agreement. I would presume that the above sentence about co
42.
by 8372049 2y ago
> Article 16 says only They are referring to Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the union, not this directive. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
43.
by 8372049 2y ago
I hope you're right, söta bror. > since EULAs are straight-up invalid in Sweden Is there anywhere I can read more about that? I didn't find anything with a quick search. Sources in Swedish are fine. This EU source says basicall
44.
by 8372049 2y ago
> You have the right to repair what you own. Based on what? Specifically, it's not listed in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights [0] > This is aimed at preventing companies from preventing you from doing so. This is a
45.
by 8372049 2y ago
Are you sure about that? The core rule is usually that contracts are binding. In some cases they are void if exceptionally unreasonable. > While this proposal regulates certain business practices concerning repair in view of the sustain
46.
by 8372049 2y ago
As far as I can tell, this directive mainly mandates that producers offer to repair certain categories of products, for a price or for free and that independent professional repair shops/services can access tools, parts and information
47.
by 8372049 2y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by that. In any case it's not a "lecture" in the scalding meaning of the word. Explaining why something is bad is better than simply downvoting.
48.
by 8372049 2y ago
The reason you're getting downvoted is because we avoid reddit-esque cookie cutter jokes like that on here. They don't add much to the discussion and lower the signal to noise ratio.
49.
by 8372049 2y ago
Putin knows that if he initiates a nuclear war, he will lose as much as everyone else. Helping Ukraine defend against the invaders is not "poking the bear".
50.
by 8372049 2y ago
Pu-239 is not particularly dangerous, however. It can cause cancer if inhaled in sufficient quantities — which doesn't need much, but is unlikely if it's scattered in the atmosphere. U-235 is basically harmless.
51.
by 8372049 2y ago
Pu-239 and U-235, the most common elements in nukes, are not very radioactive. Both alpha decay, meaning they're only really dangerous if inhaled as dust (or if they fission, obviously). Pu-239 has a half-life of around 24k years iirc,
52.
by 8372049 2y ago
An intercepted warhead would highly likely not explode.
53.
by 8372049 2y ago
If your nukes are intercepted before any of them can hit their targets, do they count as functioning nukes?
54.
by 8372049 2y ago
I love the five point order-esque style, warms my military heart
55.
by 8372049 2y ago
Depends how you define opportunity. Getting really good at something is 90 % putting in a lot of hours and 10 % talent. Putting in a lot that don't pay isn't for everyone, while the really great devs will do a lot of tech work out
56.
by 8372049 2y ago
Fun fact, when comprehending sign language the narrator voice is the same as when comprehending vocal language. By the same I mean that it works and "sounds" the same, but obviously it has the grammar and vocabulary of whatever si
57.
by 8372049 2y ago
Equally anecdotally, I mostly agree but have a friend who writes code much like I do. Reading his code is like reading my own.
58.
by 8372049 2y ago
My personal opinion is that 'not' (Python-style) should be the operator instead, simply because it's easier to miss a ! than a 'not'. With that said, I'm with you in the 'not isEqual(a, b)' camp. The
59.
by 8372049 2y ago
Have you tried ddrescue?
60.
by 8372049 2y ago
For reference, the rest of the sentence is: [I feel] like I used to spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with suspect hard drives.

More ›