Hell the US came and joined Israel’s side in a war after the IDF sank the USS Liberty.

My experience is limited, but not no experience. In any case, it’s not like Windows 10 will be immediately unusable when support ends.

What are your plans when end of life /support comes to Windows ten?

Switch to Linux and run virtual machines when I need to use Windows.

Right now I don’t quite have the drive to do it, but an end to support for Windows 10 would push me over the edge. I just can’t stand Windows 11, not even because of all the bullshit but just the way it mandates the UI structure - last time I tried it my dealbreaker was that you can’t just have it always display all taskbar icons, you have to manually force each one to show. If a new icon comes up, it will be hidden.

I’m sure I’ll be there with you soon enough.

The main picture says “Vape Sensor in Simon’s Desk”, so it sounds like each pupil’s desk is going to have a sensor.

/me Laughs in Windows 10.

Thanks, yet another reason why my example was a bit off hah.

If the US only awarded actual damages like most of the rest of the world, instead of inflated punitive damages, then this would pretty much be a non-issue. Rightsholders in the US see targeting copyright infringement as a source of income, not a necessary indemnity.

I said you came in to correct me but didn’t actually deliver any corrections. You just talked about the things you know.

I didn’t say the same thing you said, I provided the correction that you left out.

I mean, you are trying to be pedantic lol but it’s justified in this instance.

No one’s getting banned here lol. Also deaddit happened because of admin, lemmy still has every opportunity to pack up shop and create new communities (with blackjack and hookers).

Yeah pretty much.

I mean I’d just draw back to three things:

• Ben Gvir was closely involved in the Israeli far right group that assassinated the Israeli Prime Minister in the 90s.
• Netanyahu previously said that people should give Hamas money, as this would be the best way for Israel to take control of Gaza and the West Bank (and apparently now their eyes are on Lebanon next).
• For some reason Netanyahu left a skeleton crew on the border, sacrificing guards in the towers, relying on an early warning system with an obvious single point of failure (sole reliance on the cellphone network), on the 50th anniversary of the last Yom Kippur war. Anyone with half a brain would realise that such a calendar date is a time for heightened security, not relaxed. And this is the man who campaigned for office on his ability to provide security for Israel.

The Nazis didn’t have prisoner release on the negotiating table. I’m not saying Hamas’ terms were right, but the IDF hardly exhausted all options, or even most options, before they went “oh boy here I go killing again”.

Also, the IDF previously killed hostages that were topless waiving white, such is their bloodlust.

I dunno, allegedly people actually vote for a man named “Trump”.

We can also safely assume they had a very happy life until hammas decided to kidnap them on OCT 7.

Absolutely. However they were kept alive until recently. What happened recently? Israel stepped up its assault. This is a strong correlation.

Does the IDF expect Hamas to just hand over hostages when they come in? If Israel were sincere about their desire to rescue hostages they would be acting differently.

So we can reasonably assume they were alive until the IDF ramped things up in both Gaza and the West Bank.

Trump secured three pay raises for our troops and their families including the largest pay raise in over a decade.

Not quite correct:

Basic pay for the military did increase by 2.4 percent on Jan. 1, 2018 — the largest in eight years. But pay increases are determined by a statutory formula, and Trump in fact requested an amount below the automatic adjustment for 2018. Congress overrode the president’s proposal, and Trump ultimately agreed to fully fund the increase as determined by federal law.

Trump didn’t secure the pay raise, he wanted to pay them less but was overruled. The other pay raises were also mandatory.

The increase under Trump was also only 2.4%, and the most in 8 years (not “over a decade”). Meanwhile the increase under Biden was 5.2%, the most in decades, plural, more than 20 years.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-passes-defense-policy-bill-52-pay-raise-troops-biggest-boost-de-rcna129668

He rebuilt the military after 8 years of neglect under the previous administration with over $2.2 trillion in defense spending, including $738 billion for 2020.

Spending in defense =/= good for servicemen and veterans. The vast majority of military spending does not go to personnel.

He created the space force as well which was the first new branch of the United States Armed Forces since 1947.

Splintering the USAF off and creating the Space Force arguably does not help the country. For one, the organisations’ mandates and domains are so similar that the difference does not provide benefit (NASA covers both aeronautics and space, for good reason). Second, this makes it easier for enemies of the US to determine how much is being inveseted in space activities through separate public disclosures, making it harder for the US to maintain its military lead.

He vetoed the FY21 National Defense Authorization Act, which failed to protect our national security, disrespected the history of our veterans and military, and contradicted our efforts to put America first.

Trump vetoed a bill that had an overwhelming bipartisan majority behind it, knowing full well that his veto would be overruled. That’s not a real veto, that’s just for show, just to give him something to complain about on social media. The veto was also an attempt to halt funding to federal agencies, a common tactic of the Republican party, and one that hurts actual service members requiring them to continue working without pay.

He protected America’s defense-industrial base, directing the first whole-of-government assessment of our manufacturing and defense supply chains since the 1950s.

Trump also stole classified documents and leaked them to Russia. Him running an “assessment” of US defense supply chains is more about him providing intel to foreign adversaries.

He also helped our Veterans out by giving them the ability to go to whatever doctor they want to go to so they would no longer have to wait so long that some of them were dying to be seen at the VA.

He helped the US healthcare industry by giving them more customers and overruled the VA’s pricing system, such that the taxpayer pays more to exploitative corporations.

And I believe that he would have done much more for our military if he wasn’t being held down by all of phony Russia collusion nonsense.

HAH. Trump has always been in bed with Russia, this has been public knowledge since the 80s. His young girl talent agencies were involved with Russian human trafficking.

You’ve got your head buried in the sand. Trump would rather gut and gimp the military so the US can roll over for Russia.

Because of enshittification lol

It looks like you haven’t really digested anything of the conversation here before you came in to reply with corrections.

Not everywhere.

Previous rulings are a precedent in Common Law systems like the US, UK, Canada, or Australia.

Only Supreme Court rulings become a precedent in Civil Law systems like the EU, Russia,most of the rest of America.

Sure, but we’re talking about Brazil. You haven’t established whether Brazil is common or civil law. Also, we’re talking about a Supreme Court ruling.

Not all of the EU is civil law. Ireland and Cyprus both use common law systems.

While common law countries often have roots connected with the UK and are very similar, civil law countries are far more varied. Many civil law countries are distinctly different and arguably should be a separate class of legal structure - even ones with French roots (perhaps the most prominent civil law country).

Ultimately, though, the differences between civil and common law structures are almost entirely technical in nature. The end result is largely the same - in a common law country, case law can continue to be challenged until a Supreme Court ruling, and as such it isn’t really proper case law until such a ruling, just like in civil law countries.

https://guides.library.harvard.edu/law/brazil

Brazil is, in fact, a civil law country. However, they do follow case law from Supreme Court, which would make this ruling about requiring a representative valid case law. Which is what I said to OP.

The EU at its top level creates “Directives”

This is exactly what I said.

The EU made GDPR law (well, strictly speaking they made a directive, then member states make laws that must meet or exceed that directive)

The EU made a directive, this directive led to GDPR laws made by member states. However I was apparently mistaken, it wasn’t an EU Tribunal court case that led to cookie splash screens through case law, it was Recital 66 (lol Order 66), essentially a 2009 modification to the 2002 ePrivacy Directive, followed by roundtable discussions that heavily favoured the advertising industry over civil interest groups leading to its formal implementation into the directive in 2012.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/truth-behind-cookie-banners-alexander-hanff-cipp-e-cipt-fip-

To summarise:

• What I said at the start was right - Brazil’s Supreme Court ruling requiring social media companies to have representatives is valid case law.
• My example of cookie splash screens wasn’t ideal, but you did not give the right reasoning, or any reasoning - it was a poor analogy because it wasn’t a judge’s rulinig that modified the law but legal discussions that were prompted by public interest groups.

Like I say, it really feels like you didn’t read very far before you made your reply. Your comment reads more as a statement of tangentially related things you know with a thin veil disguising it as a correction. If you’d just made those statements without the veil, or if you’d followed through with the corrections and actually explained what was wrong, I don’t think I would have found your reply so objectionable (although I may also have woken up on the wrong side of the bed to your comment, sorry about that).

But then, I also wouldn’t have looked into the specifics of Brazilian law or the full origins of cookie splash screens, so thanks for the motivation lol.

It’s one of the OG ones, ass-car: https://xkcd.com/37/