s279

3 ms·

1.
by s279 5y ago
The data might be from an old breach, but the data are also unlikely to change very often, so is more than likely current for a large proportion of those who have been exposed (phone number, date of birth, full name, etc).
2.
by s279 6y ago
You weren’t kidding that they weren’t kidding, I almost vomited. Some less harsh criticism: - zigzag circle looks like a visual field migraine before the spinning, cut both replace the logo with something slightly more unique. - moving text
3.
by s279 6y ago
Their news reporting isn't that bad, but what is bad is the mixing of a large number of editorial pieces that do still wave a neoliberalist flag. I encourage having a look at https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-me
4.
by s279 6y ago
I understand, but disagree. They didn’t need to violate the contract for creation of a lawsuit. Hell, they could have terminated their agreement and try to contract with apple without accepting the default agreement. They had standing the w
5.
by s279 6y ago
That’s Apple’s prerogative after banning a developer who has violated their contract with them. Otherwise you could have shady developers just create numerous of legal entities to effectively brute force their way on to the store, and Apple
6.
by s279 6y ago
Agreed!
7.
by s279 6y ago
Why should a court intervene in the contracting of two private parties? Epic started this fight by intentionally breaching an existing contract with Apple, only so they can get better terms. Microsoft does the same as Apple, it makes mo
8.
by s279 11y ago
Would a company making an assertion that it wasn't being snooped on before they were actually snooped be guilty of fraud after the fact has changed? Given they can't say they are not being snooped on...