elmo2you

13 ms·

61.
by elmo2you 5y ago
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to get at. It appears you are explaining how the Serbian government wants to tax freelancers as if they would have been regular employees. Which other country does that? Where do self-employed peo
62.
by elmo2you 5y ago
It all depends on your position, or frame of reference. No doubt it is self harm, when viewed against the well being and progress of the country as a whole. On the other hand, for the individuals and systems that appear to determine what ac
63.
by elmo2you 5y ago
Additionally, from what I've figured from the media reports on this, it's not just about this retroactive tax demand. It's also about the level of tax they will have to pay going forward, which appears to be stupendously heig
64.
by elmo2you 5y ago
For starters, because it's "might makes right" and double blatant standards all the way down. Nothing particularly unique, for almost any empire in history has operated worked that way. Just as almost any empire eventually ha
65.
by elmo2you 6y ago
Yes, it can be (depending on what you do). Arbitrary doesn't just mean treating individuals differently (discrimination) without a proper legal justification. It also applies to any government or business that overextends their legal m
66.
by elmo2you 6y ago
I agree with you. My main reason for not bringing up the internal complications of the UDHR was to not add confusion, but you are completely right about how some of these rights can conflict. You are equally right about the "arbitrary&
67.
by elmo2you 6y ago
Plenty of countries (if not most) have this or something similar, anchored in either their constitution or at least in regular law. This should not come as a surprise either, since it's essentially the implementation of Article 12 of t
68.
by elmo2you 6y ago
> The trolls get out-trolled regularly Maybe in a rare case, here and there. But you better believe this modern moment isn't trolling. I've met plenty people who strongly identified with this movement and had several lengthy di
69.
by elmo2you 6y ago
> Why would someone "tweak" a key To make it look, at least to outsiders (be that users or researchers) like you are providing actually strong crypto. Leaking a key might not be as trivial as some people would imagine, with pro
70.
by elmo2you 6y ago
> If I'm Evil Social Media Company and I want to leak your secrets to someone .. Apparently I failed to be clear. The companies in question might not (and probably don't) have evil intentions. They could either be forced (and e
71.
by elmo2you 6y ago
> Why would someone backdoor their own key when they could instead just mirror the data or something? Ever thought about .. let say big commercial companies (e.g. social media platforms), using keys that are either knowingly or unknowing
72.
by elmo2you 6y ago
Yes, that's what I meant with dated. So the linked paper is a work in progress from half a year ago, but presented today on ePrint and with an abstract that has extra text added. I can not determine if this "discovery" could
73.
by elmo2you 6y ago
This last sentence of the abstract, "This destroyes the RSA cryptosystem", does not appear on the abstract of the actual PDF (which also appears to be dated). How does it destroy RSA? Under what conditions? That claim sounds rathe
74.
by elmo2you 6y ago
I get why they put out a post like this. They also appear to be correct in calling out the misinformation, regardless whether it was caused by a misinterpreted fun meme or intention to fool/misinform. However, with some of the decision
75.
by elmo2you 6y ago
> I’m curious what’s your opinion on Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme by any other name .. which primarily works because it exploits the uncertainties which many people feel about yet another system we are all invested in (whether we like it or no
76.
by elmo2you 6y ago
Maybe it's just me, but this reads to me is as a big load of cleverly worded (misleading) statements that say little, yet make all kind of vague suggestions. I don't know any details about this particular tech, but I think the ar
77.
by elmo2you 6y ago
I am tempted to agree with what you say. I do believe that modern technology has lowered (financial) barriers to access art, no doubt. However, if it's only artists that appear to be mostly suffering from this new reality, while big (r
78.
by elmo2you 6y ago
Erich Schmidt's audacity is both telling and shocking. This is pretty much the equivalent of an armed robber saying that everyone can still be save from harm, as long as you just stay home and don't go outside. Probably the bigges
79.
by elmo2you 6y ago
> it is still very much the most powerfull country and will probably stay, if not number 1, at least in the top 3 for at least the rest of our lifetime. That's funny. What do you really know, about where that power/wealth mostl
80.
by elmo2you 6y ago
“A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.” ~ Mahatma Ghandi I think that says it all. Despite all the propaganda/cultural brainwashing, convincing many Americans that their country/culture is somehow
81.
by elmo2you 6y ago
> You can use this as a stepping stone to asking other countries to normalize their laws to be similar to yours You are certainly correct, if maybe only in theory. At the rate things are going, good luck with any country freely harmonizi
82.
by elmo2you 6y ago
I believe so too. In addition, I vaguely remember something about the acquisition of WhatsApp by Facebook to be only approved under condition that exactly this kind of data sharing would not happen. Although I have my doubts about it happen
83.
by elmo2you 6y ago
The US government should do whatever it sees fit for its subjects. That's not the issue. The issue is that a US company should also be held accountable for whatever they violates abroad. Not by the US government, of course. But by the
84.
by elmo2you 6y ago
You are correct, on each and every count. However, none of that is related to what I tried to highlight. Sure, the US is (rightfully so) subjecting every company within its jurisdiction to US law, no matter on which market they operate. Som
85.
by elmo2you 6y ago
The only ones you have to blame for that, are the companies to show you those annoying popups. They have no obligation whatsoever to show that to anyone outside the EU. Start complaining to those companies and stop pointing your finger in t
86.
by elmo2you 6y ago
Policy set by whom? That of a commercial company, which does not have a legal mandate (at least not in the EU) to make make rules that violate EU law (including legal protections), or the US government, which does not have legal jurisdictio
87.
by elmo2you 6y ago
There is no doubt about US companies having to follow US law. But this is an internationally operating company, which means it has to also follow whatever law might apply to whatever market they operate on. GitHub, as any other US company,
88.
by elmo2you 6y ago
It appears that you are pretty much the only one who gets it. At least from anyone who responded. I find it rather shameful, that apparently everyone who responded to my question, did so by explaining that a US company has to abide by US la
89.
by elmo2you 6y ago
Yes, it actually is illegal to arbitrarily discriminate people based on their ethnicity, political views or nationality (unless there is a specific law that allows that for a particular nationality, e.g. in case of a legal embargo)
90.
by elmo2you 6y ago
As a government, yes. As a commercial company, operating on a market outside of US jurisdiction, please explain me the legal basis for that (if you can).

More ›