It’ll be more than a question. But again, how will Australia enforce that? Even if Australia provided a free API for age checks, it would still be a hassle to implement it. Are eg Fediverse devs going to do that?

Australian law enforcement can seize servers that are physically in Australia. It can also cut off cash flow for any business with paying customers in Australia. And all the rest? Even aside from free VPNs, there is a lot of internet that they can’t touch.

They can lean on the likes of Youtube or Facebook to steer people in a more government approved direction. But as soon as people become annoyed or bored, they just go elsewhere beyond government control. If ID requirements are onerous for ordinary people, they will avoid compliant sites from the start.

The government could make Australian ISPs use a blacklist or a whitelist. Serious enforcement is possible, but not without going full totalitarian.

Ok, and how will it be enforced at all?

That gives 30% to Steam though. Better use Itch.io as linked on the github page.

https://anuke.itch.io/mindustry

Something as short as “Skywalker” can’t be copyrighted. You don’t need permission to use a trademark as long as you don’t harm the brand or confuse the customer. Since trademarks are often family names, there are a number of unrelated companies that operate under the same name but in a different business.

While the possession and cultivation of marijuana are already banned in Japan, the country will prohibit its use as well, setting a prison sentence of up to seven years for violation.

Ok, so that clears that up.

That looks like the St. Petersburg Paradox. Much ink has been spilled over it.

The expected payout is infinite. At any point, the “rational” (profit-maximizing) decision is to keep flipping, since you wager a finite sum of money to win an infinite sum. It’s very counter-intuitive, hence called a paradox.

In reality, a casino has finite money. You can work out how many coin flips it takes to bankrupt it. So you can work out how likely it is to reach that point with a given, finite sum of money. Martingale strategies have already been mentioned.

If it’s not clear, then it’s not compliant with the GDPR.

It’s not thaaat soft. It’s not quite clear what it means, exactly. The courts still have to work that out. But you will not get away with just any argument.

It’s never legal to collect more data than necessary and/or for an unspecified purpose.

Tracking for personalized ads could be based either on consent or on legitimate interest. If it’s consent, then they need to tell you up front what specifically they use the data for and some other things. If it’s legitimate interest, they can just start doing it, but still have to tell you afterward and also inform you that you have the right to opt out.

I guess, practically, whether a company claims one or the other is whether it feels lucky about a court case. With consent, you are on the safe side but it’s a little harder to get. Legitimate interest may get you more ad money in the short run but eventually, maybe or maybe not, a fine.

That’s not correct. The GDPR explicitly gives “direct marketing” as an example of a “legitimate interest”.

The GDPR prohibits processing of personal data, unless there is a legal basis for it. Personal data covers a lot more than you think, as does processing.

What counts as a legal basis may be seen in Article 6 of the GDPR. Consent is one option, but it must be informed and freely given; a very high bar. If you have a legitimate interest, you may process data without prior consent. However, you must still provide the “data subject” with information and give them the option to opt out. They must tell you the legal basis, which they have done, but also what exactly that their interest is. (And a couple more things.) There should be a statement somewhere containing that information.

The GDPR gives “direct marketing” as an example of a legitimate interest. Some DPOs interpret the term extremely narrowly, though. It’s a contentious issue. The courts will work it out over the next few years.

The noun doesn’t matter after an adjective like ‘multiple.’ Nothing good ever follows ‘multiple.’

-Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!

The Russian reliance on terror tactics makes me wonder what lessons they took away from WW2. This is clearly part of a pattern; a military doctrine, that had already been applied during the fighting in Syria, if not earlier.

Not like this is the first time. It’s not even the second time.

Ahh. TV shows before everything became political. Just two guys hating each other for very silly reasons completely unconnected to anything on earth.

Yes. I think you could say that that being found inside a python pretty much implies being found dead. (There is this one guy, though, but he failed to get himself eaten.)

However, I think it’s just not sufficiently obvious to most people.

Huh. I thought that one was the one that might work, as everyone knows that Americans go bowling all the time. I guess Americans go to the zoo more often than I realized. Or is it something indirect? Like the kid’s bedroom window, which they always use to sneak past the parents, is 1 standard giraffe high? Would be nice for them to be able to feed the giraffes when the circus comes to town.

2 things:

“more than half the length of a bowling lane and makes this snake longer than a giraffe is tall.”

Do Americans really consider this helpful information?

marking at least the fifth person to be devoured by a python in the country since 2017.

The Wikipedia page on reticulated pythons needs to be updated.

I have spent a disturbing amount of time trying to decide if it was necessary to clarify that she was found dead inside the python. I believe that, yes, it was. Make of that what you will.

That’s a weird comparison, given that Russia is and has always been a genocidal empire. A pertinent example is the renewed persecution of the Crimean Tatars under the present russian occupation.

But it’s not “from each according to his ability”. FOSS is what people feel like contributing. And it’s not “to each according to their need”. It’s take it or leave it, unless someone feels like fulfilling requests.

Traditionally, the slogan meant a duty to work. Contributing what you feel like is just charity.

Capitalism, at its core, is private control of the capital. Copyright law turns code into intellectual property/capital. I’ve read the argument that copyleft requires strong copyrights. That argument implicitly makes copyleft a feature of capitalism. You know how rich people or corporations sometimes donate large sums to get their name on something, EG a hospital wing? That’s not so different from a FOSS license that requires attribution.