I don’t see how this is so difficult. Given the choice between a narcissistic billionaire or an independent, accountable government commission that’s bound by the rule of law, I’ll choose the latter every time.
I don’t see how this is so difficult. Given the choice between a narcissistic billionaire or an independent, accountable government commission that’s bound by the rule of law, I’ll choose the latter every time.
With this approach you would lose the subvolume structure and deduplication if I’m not mistaken.
The most common physical attacks will be you misplacing your device or some friend/burglar/cop taking it. FDE works great in those scenarios.
Do you have experience with Spanish employment law?
What is “southern Ireland”? Do you mean Ireland?
Yes, it is generally a good idea to put internet-facing servers on a network that is separated from the local network. The point of this is not to minimize their attack surface (since they are already connected to the internet after all) but to prevent them from being used as a stepping stone for attacks on your internal network. To make this effective, you should block traffic from the internet-facing network to the rest of your network and treat it as potentially untrusted.
“Gen Z simply uses technology more than any other generation and is therefore more likely to be scammed via that technology.”
If you turn the fan up high enough it will blow the heat from outside into the house. Trust me, I’m a scientists.
Applying AI-voodoo to a non-existing problem with unknown side effects? Sign me up!
In case you don’t know, Cloudflare already controls a massive amount of websites, have access to their unencrypted traffic and are making the web inaccessible for people who use tor or noscript. They are a threat to the open web.
Communication network providers in the EU generally aren’t liable for illegal activity of their users.
While it’s stupid that ISPs are using their monopolies to screw consumers, the concept of data caps is not as stupid as you might think.
You’re not just paying for the connection between you and the ISP, but also all the other data links that get your internet traffic to its destination. For example, those cables across the ocean are owned third parties and they charge money for every byte that goes through. It wouldn’t be unreasonable for ISPs to pass that cost to users.
Furthermore, most links are overprovisioned in order to keep costs down. For example, if you assume that users only use 10% of their bandwidth on average, that means you can fit 10x as many people on a connection (or maybe 8x to account for peaks). This does mean that users should be discouraged from using their full bandwidth for long durations, otherwise the network operators can’t overprovision as much and have to invest more in infrastructure.
For the last time: these language models are just regurgitating what people have said. They don’t analyze or reason.
It’s what the ePrivacy directive says, yes. But some get around this by claiming that it’s necessary for the operation of the device/service (doubtful) or that it has limited effect on privacy (depends on exceptions created by member states)
National courts to take EU law into account. If you don’t agree with their interpretation of EU law, your option is to appeal or ask to refer questions to the EUCJ.
Just so you know, this also creates more load on other instances, especially the larger ones.
Never repeat anything 👍
That’s not accurate. Copyright and trademark are two different things. The name “twitter” is also just a combination of preexisting characters and the word was probably in use before the company was founded. You can still trademark existing things because trademarks are about preventing consumer confusion, not protecting original creations.
Musk does have a problem with copyright if it turns out this specific design was made by someone else.
Such is the fate of hypercentralized spaces. The fediverse fixes this.