I don't know. A company worth trillions of dollars does a pretty fine job of making Windows incrementally worse in new and interesting ways, each release.
There's some truth; the bloated company structure has contributed to these unforced errors, but just at an engineering level, people are releasing this tripe without the skill or training or backbone to know what is bad, and push back on toxic management decisions.
Engineers collaborating with oppressive management is a technical failure. Google is riddled with the same problem. I'm sure all the FAANG-a-likes do. Paying billions in salaries to sycophant devs. They have the market share to keep failing upwards. They don't deserve it.
Not listening to engineers is a serious engineering problem that's played out in construction, automotive and software engineering dozens of times over.
The penalty for Microsoft ignoring their devs might just be a slow decline into irrelevance, not a bridge collapsing, or an autonomous vehicle hitting the lane barrier because the boss refuses to use LiDAR, but it's all bad management causing an engineering problem.
> Not listening to engineers is a serious engineering problem.
No, that's the very archetype of a political problem. It is a political problem that impacts the engineering output, yes, but still a political problem.
British industry and standards bodies think this is an unsafe plan.
Of course they would because it's work being taken away from them but it would be allowing people to plug generators into ring finals with unidirectional breakers. It's not even guaranteed that the circuit is protected by anything newer than fuse wire or an MCB. No guaranteed earth leakage detection. No guaranteed surge protection. Relying on the cheapest inverters to sync frequency accurately. And
I have more faith in German standards and work ethic than our own.
I am not very well versed on this topic but I believe the balcony solar products market one of their safety features as "anti-islanding protection". Personally I wonder what happens if multiple balcony solar systems are connected... can each still tell when the grid is down since the other power source is active?
Unless there's so much generating capacity available that they can power the entire connected grid, no.
Consider 100 homes on a power line network and the breaker trips. They probably draw 50kW on average, more if it's hot or cold and AC is on. Unless there's enough power generation available to power that entire load, voltage will drop and any halfway reasonable hardware should give up.
my understanding is that micro-inverters send an "up and running" signal encoded over the DC wiring to the main inverter, and that this is used to detect micro-inverter failure. that is an entirely different problem than the one in the GP comment, i think.
Again, entirely different to the point being raised.
You have 4 neighbors, all with grid-tied inverters, all of which will do rapid shutdown if the grid goes down.
The grid does go down ... but are there circumstances under which the presence of neighboring inverters will "hide" the grid being down from each inverter, and so they will keep delivering power back to the grid ?
The situation in germany is essentially the same, but that's why net supply by these is limited to 800 W. I don't think anything changes w.r.t. earth leakage, why would the presence of the solar supply change anything from the RCD and fault point of views, respectively?
Not expert but one difference is that in Germany the standard wiring is radial circuits with 16A MCBs while in the UK it's ring wiring with 32A MCBs.
So in the UK we have 2.5mm^2 wires in a ring on a 32A MCBs... Of course a 2.5mm^2 wire is rated ~20A so any issues with the ring (sockets still work since connected from the other branch) can burn the wire before the MCB trips...
The "standard" wiring is 1.5mm² on 16A MCBs which are rated to trip at 1.13-1.45x nominal current (so 18-23 A). So this is already mildly improper because you can pull elevated currents continuously and dramatically shorten the life of the insulation.
We would call it "a serious code violation." It's prohibited in the NEC and always has been, it's objectively less safe.
From what I understand the UK allowed it because of a severe postwar copper shortage and it persists to this day because it's allowed and a bit cheaper.
> From what I understand the UK allowed it because ...
I'd say "severe post-WWII money shortage". After wartime expansion, the global copper industry could physically meet peacetime demands. But the UK was very close to national bankruptcy. And the Luftwaffe had turned an awful lot of their prewar housing into rubble. So - any cost that could be cut, was.
If your generator is plugged into their own circuit, it wouldn't change much.
If you plug it into an overloaded ring final (which is not uncommon in the UK - half our house's sockets are on a single ring), you have to rely on the generator being able to detect faults to protect that circuit.
You could also overload that circuit's wiring. If you have a a 16A Ecoflow, plug it into a 32A ring, you could draw 48A before tripping the grid circuit breaker, potentially causing significant heat in the wires. Dinky 3A generators won't do that but I don't think they're the limit our government are talking about.
Yes they are. Current alternates direction, but power usually only flows in one direction, from the input terminal (from the bus bar) to the output terminal (that the circuit is wired into).
If the circuit will be supplying power too (e.g. battery storage, an EV and EVSE that supports powering the house from the EV, etc) then you need a bidirectional RCBO.
People with no differential fault protection need not worry about any of this, they'll just be killed when it goes badly wrong.
EDIT: To say nothing of people with unidirectional electricity meters; plugging these into those setups will get them prosecuted for electricity theft. All SMETS 2 smart meters are bidirectional; you'd best check your meter if it isn't one of those.
Between the phasing out of analog meters (the latter half of the last century) and the introduction of smart meters (2010), a lot of electronic prepayment meters produced for the UK market would set a tamper flag if they detected power flowing backwards through them, as a proxy indication of an attempt at electricity theft. These meters will refuse top-ups in this condition, requiring you to contact your energy supplier to sort it out, leaving you without power until you do and then exposing you to scrutiny when they arrive.
Pre-smart non-prepayment electronic meters (for those with old meters, still submitting manual readings, and paying by direct debit) will be fine. Most of these meters, and all smart meters, are inherently bidirectional, because they maintain 4 counts (energy imported and energy exported, in kWh and kVARh) and your energy provider will do all the necessary math to figure out what to actually bill you for (residential customers are not billed for kVARh usage).
The UK government in 2011 announced plans to have 50 million smart meters installed by the end of 2020. In typical overpromise underdeliver government fashion, they didn't even achieve half of that; by then, only 23.6 million had been installed, and of those, 4.5 million had stopped working because they were initially (and stupidly) designed to be tied to a specific energy provider and the customer had changed provider. This even affected me.
Nevertheless they'd still accurately track energy consumption and export even if they'd lost their reporting capability, so you have nothing to fear here. This situation has been rectified at the redesign stage with provider-independent SMETS 2 meters, and all SMETS 1 meters still in service have been hotpatched to bring them into line (restoring their smart functionality regardless of provider).
Even today (well, as of last September), this number is only 40 million, with only 36.7 million of them actually working as designed (reporting readings automatically).
This leaves up to 16 million properties with a meter that may stop working and expose you to a theft investigation when you obtain generation capacity that even momentarily exceeds your usage (for example if you have a dual RCD board and one of the RCDs trips, taking out half of the circuits in your home, but not the one the inverter is plugged into).
Realistically the true figure is probably around a quarter of that; prepayment meters were very popular among the renting population of the time, and those who wanted to track their energy usage carefully and only pay for it with cash as and when needed, and sometimes people had these meters forced upon them by suppliers after the customer had demonstrated poor payment history, but they were far from the norm.
Average home owner buying plug-in solar at a supermarket isn't going to know or care about any of this. They'll just plug it in, and it will work, until one day maybe it doesn't and their supplier opens a theft investigation.
I feel like the meter suddenly "breaking" is the substantially larger inconvenience. Presumably the supplier will raise an eyebrow at the flag, glance over the place, see the solar setup and get on with life. At least one would hope. They must have seen this a time or two by now after all.
The kind of meters we used to install 50 years ago would turn backwards if electricity flowed backwards.
So if you spent a week with the meter connected normally, then you swapped the input and output cables around for a week, the meter would be back at zero. Free electricity!
They used anti-tamper seals to make it more detectable, but there are ways around that sort of thing.
That’s an RCD, not a breaker. Guess the English still insist on using nonstandard terminology, like “lift”, “bonnet”, “torch”, and, apparently, “breaker”. Oh well.
This is not an RCD, it's an RCBO. It combines the functions of an MCB (Miniature Circuit Breaker) and an RCD (Residual Current Device) in one device, as specified by BS EN 61009 (Residual Current Operated Circuit Breakers with Integral Overcurrent Protection).
It would be really interesting to know what's so special about these UK units that they can be "damaged" by being fed from the "wrong" side (as per some other article), considering that the only place where these behave like that is an island north of France.
These are not just circuit breakers/MCBs, they are RCBOs which combine an MCB + RCD in a single unit. RCDs traditionally only measure - and protect - current flow is one direction, so if you are using them for solar you need a bi-directional unit for full protection. The device will not be damaged, it just won't protect you.
However in the case of a UK home, where you may have a single ring circuit connecting all the sockets on the whole floor, what's in the breaker panel isn't going to protect you with plug-in solar anyway. Better hope what you are plugging in meets UK standards and isn't just some Chinese rubbish that claims it does.
Outside the UK, neither RCDs nor RCBOs (type A/AC) are generally distinguished by bidirectionality (all search results about this being .co.uk), since the RCD part of these devices is just a current transformer driving a trip solenoid; there is nothing in it that's powered by the line, nor something which could sense net power flow direction. The situation is different for AFDDs or type B RCDs, since those have active, powered electronics in them which need to be fed from the line side.
After some research the main reason seems to be two-fold:
Answer #1: Many UK RCDs/RCBOs are actually single-pole devices and don't disconnect the neutral. In the simplest case, this means pressing the test button might burn out the test resistor when backfed. I don't imagine this to be a problem in practice, since grid-tie inverters shut down very quickly if the grid disappears under them, especially plug-in inverters. RCDs/RCBOs elsewhere are virtually always disconnecting the neutral, so don't care about this.
Answer #2: It looks like some/many one-module wide UK RCBOs _do have_ electronics in them, even if type A, because they're actively driving the trip solenoid of the MCB part, and if you sketch this out and do it in a very cheap way it's easy to see how you could burn that out if backfed (i.e. powering the trip solenoid during a fault is assumed to disconnect in a very short amount of time, but if backfed for longer than the disconnect time that might be enough to toast the solenoid or the driver).
Notably neither of these has anything to do with the direction of power flow.
> Answer #1: Many UK RCDs/RCBOs are actually single-pole devices and don't disconnect the neutral.
This is not correct; all type AC and type A RCDs used in British consumer units disconnect the neutral as well. Some RCBOs do not disconnect the neutral and this is a problem in some circumstances. The datasheet I linked for Wylex NHXS1 RCBOs explains that these ones do disconnect the neutral.
> Answer #2: It looks like some/many one-module wide UK RCBOs _do have_ electronics in them [...] but if backfed for longer than the disconnect time that might be enough to toast the solenoid or the driver
This is correct. For an example of this construction in an RCBO, see [1]. This illustrates that if the supply is connected to the "To Load" part of the schematic (toward the end of the video), as it would be if the supply is a solar PV inverter with battery storage, then it can continue powering the electronics and be shunted out by the thyristor after it has supposed to have tripped, very quickly burning itself out.
Bidirectional RCBOs are not designed in this manner. They have more complicated circuitry that makes them more expensive to manufacture, but are absolutely required in situations like this if you don't want your protective devices to burn and/or explode when they operate.
> Notably neither of these has anything to do with the direction of power flow.
Yes it does, because if the power is flowing backwards to how they designed it, that is backfeeding it, keeping its circuitry powered after it should have been disconnected.
NEC doesn't specify GFCI breakers, it merely requires receptacles in certain areas have GFCI protection, and accepts GFCI breakers as one way to provide that.
The conventional practice in the US is still to use GFCI receptacles rather than breakers.
Because NEC 210.12 requires all devices to be protected. Which means if you have a switch or splice before a plug the only way to protect those is with an AFCI breaker. The only exception is a continuous run from the breaker to an outlet in metal conduit or MC cable. Given how much is romex this effectively forces AFCI branch breakers.
I find that receptacles tend to break prematurely if they are wet locations, even if 'protected' with a weatherproof box etc. You also need to know where the receptacle is and make sure it is accessible instead of behind a piece of furniture etc. Then some electricians misunderstand and put receptacles throughout the run (much more expensive than one breaker which is about 2x a receptacle), and in edge cases you need to know the order in which to reset them to get things working again. I much prefer to just have everything in the panel.
Always important to note that "code" does not mean "must meet this standard". Many existing installations will not meet current code and there are varying levels of code (at least in the UK) that mean anything from an electrician can ignore minor faults through to network-notifiable issues.
But that's rather the point here that consumers are the ones who are going to be plugging in these devices, with no appreciation for their circuits and safety devices. The only code that matters is the last version of it adhered to when their home was last wired. In extremes, that can be 40 years or more.
sure, but everything new must meet current code. nobody upgrads when code changes anywhere. Codes from 40 years ago were not bad, though things are always improving.
I find it interesting because often the best way to achieve a safe building code is to learn by allowing with basic guard rails and iterating as things happen. This isn’t ideal for the rare individual impacted by the “things happening,” but collectively we refine and iterate. Our current standards weren’t arrived at by navel gazing - we got the codes we have by experience. It’s hard to realize that from the present that you can’t reasonably learn without doing and by constraining without learning prevents growth and learning.
"Things happen" is a interesting way to say "houses burn down and kill everyone inside". And I don't believe that electrical standards were developed with the idea that houses could both consume and generate electricity.
Not to mention that most houses aren't up to current electrical standards, much less fire codes.
Are there lessons on safety that need to be learned here? We already know what the happy path looks like, and we've plenty of lessons on what the unhappy path will look like.
It isn't as if electric charge coming from balcony solar panels is some new magical-seeming type of electricity.
Safety is statistical and depends on human behavior. Unexpected behaviors might appear. For example some places require a power outlet on kitchen islands because with out, people will use cords to the wall which creates tripping hazards.
Also, why do wires have to be fixed to joists every 300 mm? It's not about the electrons.
This is wild. I'll be honest I've long been scared away from FreeCAD because of the overwhelming number of buttons and hotkeys but have recently started 3D printing and using deliberately limited tools like TinkerCAD and OpenSCAD and quickly found those limits. "Simple" things like easing an edge, adding clearance, or cutting threads.
On the suggestion of one of these comments I've started watching Deltahedra videos on YouTube [and they're great] but after watching his 1.1 release video it looks like half his tutorials could be remade with the new shortcuts. It's also pretty humbling to see someone who knows their tools make something.
I'd worry if I was AutoDesk. Given the way they treat their customers like pinatas, I'm surprised they've maintained their dominance.
If we want to base the argument on technical nuance, 4chan are sending their packets to the U.K. just as the cocaine dealer would be sending packets (of cocaine) to their buyers in the U.K.
They're replying to an externally-established connection. The packets they're sending are going to a local router.
If you posted cocaine from your cocaine-legal country to an address where it was illegal, and you followed all the regular customs labelling rules, I'm not sure you should be liable. And you shouldn't be extradited either. Even the UK demands that extradition offences would have been criminal had they been committed in the UK. Now I'm sure in practice, you'd find yourself in trouble immediately but I don't think it's fair.
The ramifications of laws like this is everyone needs to be Geo-IP check every request, adhere to every local law. It's not the Internet we signed up for.
I would strongly disagree with that, in the sense of the layer of communication that 4chan operate at. I would argue that 4chan aren't sending packets to the UK any more than I'm currently sending my keystrokes to wherever you are reading this from - these actions are performed at a different layer.
If the UK wants to block packets from across the pond, they should (but I hope they don't) do it via a Great Firewall, rather than expecting random foreign websites to do it for them.
I think (but am not sure) that there are long established postal laws in most territories about sending “obscene” material through the mail. I think this was used to prosecute pornography publishers in earlier times. BUT you needed to (a) intercept mail and (b) have a good reason and (c) get a warrant to open (interfere with) that mail.
Possessing pornography was a separate issue which may or may not be allowed. Typically (I think) authorities went after publishers not consumers - because they were easier targets to pin down.
Which would seem to imply that if you’re sending encrypted traffic at the request of a recipient the as a publisher of “obscene” material then unless you are delivering very clearly illegal content to a user then you should not prosecuted.
I haven’t got a single source for anything I’m saying, so I might be entirely wrong - I’m simply going off half-remembered barely-facts. So please do argue with me!
It's different, because you are willingly sending a reply to a known UK address.
In the website scenario, there are no physical addresses with a geographic component to them. The physical topology of the network is only known by the operators of the network. Only they know where the routers are physically located.
This means geoip blocking can only ever be done on a best effort basis. Actual blocking can only be done by the operators of the routers, which is why it is unreasonable to expect the website operator to be responsible for perfect compliance.
The user mails you a box with a note that says "1kg of 4chan packets pls", and a prepaid return label to an address local to you. You put the packets in the box and kick it down the street to its "destination". Job done as far as you know.
The place you sent the box then repacks it and mails it to the UK. Somehow the UK thinks that you and only you have broken the law.
1kg of packets is 100 exabytes over copper. That's a heck of an order.
Buyer beware: this calculation is based on several derivations of napkin maths with very fixed assumptions. It should be accurate to the nearest zettabyte.
Yes, it is. When you reply to an IP address, you don't magically punch a hole through the entire network to the user's physical location.
You send a packet to your ISP with an address on top. That packet physically travels to your nearest exchange and then the network figures out how to route it to the recipient's real location.
In addition, the recipient's IP address tells you nothing about who or where they are. It's fundamentally un-knowable from the sender's perspective, no matter what the UK wants you to think. IP addresses are not evidence of physical location.
When you receive a packet, there is no way to know where in the world it came from or where it wants to go. It's just a number. You can make guesses but it's still just reading tea leaves.
To believe that IP geolocation is in any way reliable is a gross misunderstanding of TCP/IP and networks in general.
The destination of the packet where it is sent, just as a toy sent from the U.S. to a customer in the U.K. is sent to the U.K. rather than the local Fedex store.
The technical argument is that the routers that are physically located in the UK are passing the packets through, not the website operator.
This is the same as letting a delivery cross your borders, except the delivery vehicle here is permanent infrastructure, similar to a pipeline and it is purposefully set to be permissive and allow anything through.
Why are you suddenly pretending that there is no equivalent to the customs office in this scenario?
It's not like the website operator is sneakily smuggling cargo on a container ship. VPN usage is done UK citizens. The operator has already denied shipments to UK addresses in this scenario.
It is easier than that: in Germany for example swastikas are forbidden. But they don't prosecute or fine web pages served in other countries. Or books for that matter. In some countries communist symbology is prohibited, yet they don't fine US web pages for having them. And don't forget the Great Firewall: China blocks pages, and get along with some webs to tune what they serve. But you can publish Tiananmen massacre images in your european hosted web, and they don't fine you: it is their problem to limit access, and they understand it.
Just to clarify for casual readers: there’s no blanket ban on swastikas in Germany. You can use it for satire or historical reasons. You’re going to find a lot of swastikas on the German Wikipedia for example.
France stopped Yahoo! from selling nazi memorabilia in France (because it's illegal to do that in France). This actually went through the US courts and they agreed, mostly [0].
It's kinda voluntary, though, there's no international agreement about this.
This isn't strictly true, major magazines like Der Spiegel can use it for 'satire' or some such nonsense, it's basically at the whim of those in power as CJ Hopkins learned, his satirical use resulted in him being perversely punished, but state aligned magazines get a pass.
Imagine this scenario, a major G7 country declares:
All bytes sent to a computer on their soil count as a transaction on their soil.
And the end client being on a VPN is not a defence UNLESS the website owner attempts to verify the user's identity.
Immediately have to pay local taxes, conform to local laws.
Unless you keep all your assets in the US and never fly abroad, our shady website operator is exposing them self to real risk of being snatched by police somewhere or having their assets seized.
The only thing stopping that from happening is the trade agreements the Americans have put in place, the very trade agreements everyone's now looking at and thinking 'what are these really worth?'.
Yeah, it's fantasy and it won't happend but it could.
The internet is not free, it runs on sufferance of a bunch of governments and some, like China, already lock it down.
The more America, who probably gains the most from it right now, plays with fire, the more risk something like this crazy scenario happens.
Another more plausible scenario is countries simply start repealing safe harbor laws. End of YouTube/Facebook/Twitter/etc. in those countries overnight.
This is basically a mutually assured destruction scenario.
The US is not going to let all US companies get fined out of retaliation, so there would be more retaliation from the US against the EU, and everyone else. In the end everyone loses, except for China, which as you mentioned is not stupid enough to play these games and decided to simply pick a lane.
China locks down the Internet and blocks foreign players (to varying levels of success). They don't reach overseas to prosecute foreign executives or fine Meta for not removing Party-critical content from Facebook. Of all the parties that could be involved in this censorship drama, China is somehow the most honest.
I know the tariffs are the bad thing of the moment (and they certainly are capricious), but I don't think you understand how much worse things can get.
You realize that the EU has had tariffs on US goods for a very long time right? I'm not saying tariffs are good, but its hypocritical to protest against behavior in which you are currently engaging.
> Another more plausible scenario is countries simply start repealing safe harbor laws.
It already happened via GDPR to some degree. CJEU ruled in December that platforms can qualify as controllers for personal data published in user-generated advertisement. The given reasoning was basically that the platform determined the means and the purposes of the processing.
Due to that they can be liable for article 82 damages.
> Didn't the US use this argument to prosecute and extradite the Mega founder?
The extradition has succeeded so far because it's based on acts that would have met a criminal bar in New Zealand, and deemed to have a high likelihood of being successfully prosecuted. Fraud, copyright infringement, etc.
The US has standing because many MegaUpload servers were in the US.
This is a fair argument since you are no longer operating exclusively in one country, but I'm pretty sure most CDNs let you block access to specific countries.
> But if a Brit comes to your country and buys cocaine from you, in person, you wouldn't expect to be convicted as a dealer in the UK.
No? All countries catch drug dealers from other countries all the time even for the crime that happened outside of their borders. Or do you really think El Chapo could vacation freely in Europe.
El Chapo was extradited and convicted for crimes actively committed in Mexico, then the US in relation to managing a multinational drug cartel. Murder, money laundering, more murder, smuggling, yet more murder, etc etc etc.
This seems significantly different to openly and honestly posting narcotics.
Howard Marx was arrested in Spain and extradited to the US on RICO charges by the DEA for something like this. It seemed like extraterritorial action by the US when I read about it.
LOL, classic. Everyone thinks they are the one being picked on. Plenty of people would argue that what you say here is actually the polar opposite of what happens on HN.
What I really struggle with is just how much more of this guy we have to put up with.
Even after he's gone, he's poisoned the GOP, quickly distilling them down to MAGA sycophants; barely a backbone between them. Real conservative politics has been deselected, slaughtered to make room for this faux-Christian xenophobic TradChad tribalism.
He's harming traditional Democrat policy too. Left-leaning people are easily pulled to the extreme when they see people being attacked in the streets and unnecessary wars in their name.
The rest of the world is tired. We don't understand why we're paying more for everything because this delinquent US government has started yet another fuel war. We just want stability and Trump isn't it.
the GOP produced him and the Christian xenophobic anti-everyone policies have been a 50 year project that's now coming to fruition. Trump is bad and so is the rest of the Republican party. this problem doesn't go away when he does.
It’s not that simple and we shouldn’t be so eager to blame our neighbours.
Trump has been heavily involved with Russian money ever since US banks refused to loan him more money for his repeated bankruptcies. At that time, Putin was head of the KGB, iirc (could fact check this I’m not 100 percent sure). Also very sus ties through marriage. I’m not sure he is -happily- compliant, but from whatever combination of stick and carrot that may exist, there is little doubt in my mind that the administration is carrying so much water for Russia that europa would blush.
If you want to see the whole story in embarrassingly human terms all you have to do is watch the physical interaction between Trump and Putin when they are in close proximity. The monkey doesn’t lie.
If you pay attention, almost everything the admin does benefits Russia in some way. Eroding soft power. Undermining nato. Crippling us debt. Hamstringing innovation through reckless trade shenanigans. Undermining trust. Abandonment of Ukraine, an erstwhile critical ally. Hand wavey condemnation of Russia but with no teeth whatsoever. Collapsing the straits of Hormuz. The list goes on and on.
Putin didn't elect him. Our neighbors did -- almost 80 million of them, and tens of millions more who decided that either choice was fine with them.
The ones who voted for him are not calling for him to be turned out of office. The elected representatives are supporting this action, and their constituents aren't turning on them, either.
He's doing what Putin wants, but he couldn't do it if it weren't also what tens of millions of Americans want. There are many ways they could do something about it, and they aren't. The overwhelming majority of them will vote to continue it come November.
If you start blaming people rather than processes, the obvious fix is to disenfranchise the people (or worse). If you blame the process and then change it to get a better outcome, everyone wins.
There is a lot of low-hanging bad fruit in how the USA runs it's democracy. You allow gerrymandering, you allow politicians to make it difficult for people to vote. The small voter turnout means the fringe single issue voters get a disproportionate say. You use first past the post, which means candidate the majority think is the "least worst" may not get elected. (No voting system is perfect, but FPP is by far the worst.) Your political donation laws favour corporates, who by definition have no interest in voter welfare.
Certainly gullible people are problematic in a democracy. But he would never have been elected without massive support from the oligarch club. Also look at the statistical analysis of the election-not decisive by itself but substantial.
Also, why do you think the dem ticket was so underwhelming? The USA thinks it’s a two party system, but it’s not. It’s really a one party system. The money party.
If you want your democracy back, get rid of citizens united, make journalism independent of industry, and create some decent framework around campaign finance.
you do realize that this is precisely the agenda that is being pushed on both sides through millions of advertising dollars every month?
If you’re too busy looking sideways to find the blame you never look up. You are living in an intentional society. It’s not nearly as as-hoc as it seems . You don’t have to push water if you can just tilt the land. The circumstances that exist for you , and your neighbours, are precisely the circumstances that were engineered for them to fill. Now, they chose to fill that role, but they didn’t make the role. Look up.
Before him there was the sense that there were [at least] two groups within the GOP. We had something similar in the UK before Brexit, the French had a much broader centre-right movement before Le Pen.
Radical populists have a habit of cuckooing all the moderates out of the party nest. I'm not sure the GOP made Trump, but they sure as hell let him in.
My Grandad lives alone and has in the past 12 months really gotten into YouTube. He's long used it to learn the latest practices in plumbing, electrics, gardening and woodwork (he's a seriously capable 86yo, always has been) and honestly our subscriptions are very similar...
But he's addicted to shorts. Doomscrolls endlessly in his downtime. Doesn't question whether obvious GenAI is real or not, and having looked over his shoulder a few times, most of it is horribly fake. Loves showing my kids what he finds.
I'd rather he have this than boredom, but also it does mean he doesn't need to socialise outside the family. If I worry about anything, it's not knowing and addressing any extreme or views he's lapping up. I know first hand how insular interests can be once you express one on YouTube and it can get pretty shitty pretty quick.
As others have said, this is exactly the same worries we have for our children except I feel we have some control. No devices or screen time and content limits. It's all very easy. It's harder to address that with your parents' parents.
Knowingly isn’t intent. It’s knowledge. Both the sender (this UK service company) and the troll fit knowingly for almost any definition I can imagine in this story. The UK sender triggered it on a second notice, after the museum had responded. The troll knows they do not own the copyright.
I think bringing this in a jurisdiction with sensible judges - Northern Cal, SDNY, Delaware, does not look impossible to me. And, it only takes one win to radically change the economics of these trolls — it seems worth doing, is all I’m saying!
Somebody disagreeing with you isn't unassailable truth. I could introduce myself as Oli, and as many times as you tell me my name is Brian, that's not going to affect my knowledge of what my name is. Same here. Despite them being told, you will struggle to prove the plaintiff here does not truly believe they hold the IP for this game.
Intent is important because it's the motive to fraudulently file. It's the closest you'll get to proving what somebody knew, unless they confess.
I don't know. A company worth trillions of dollars does a pretty fine job of making Windows incrementally worse in new and interesting ways, each release.
There's some truth; the bloated company structure has contributed to these unforced errors, but just at an engineering level, people are releasing this tripe without the skill or training or backbone to know what is bad, and push back on toxic management decisions.
Engineers collaborating with oppressive management is a technical failure. Google is riddled with the same problem. I'm sure all the FAANG-a-likes do. Paying billions in salaries to sycophant devs. They have the market share to keep failing upwards. They don't deserve it.
reply