I would much rather pay for a missile that Ukraine fires against a Russian tank in Ukraine, than pay for a missile I have to fire against the Russian tank myself after it rolled through Ukraine and to my doorstep.

I would also much rather pay to educate the world (using Russia as an example) that the international community isn’t putting up with wars of aggression and won’t let you get away with them, than have the world thrown into disarray when the next country decides to disrupt global supply chains with their war of aggression.

Supporting Ukraine is a smart thing regardless of what you think of Ukraine. It’s also the morally right thing, but if you don’t care about that, egoism should drive you to the same decision.

Decent? I know I’ve heard about him before he decided to go to Russia to be arrested and slowly killed.

I still don’t understand why he committed suicide-by-Putin.

Did he really have more influence as a martyr in prison than a free man in exile?

How many of these mosques show secondary explosions after getting hit?

Weird. The article does have today’s date but only mentions the Nov 10 decision. I think maybe what happened today is the publication of the full text of the decision?

It’d be great if that was how it works, unfortunately it seems like the penalties are closer to once every 3-5 years than monthly, skewing the balance even further to “screw the law, just pay the fee”:(

I’d say that’s a huge problem actually.

For a normal company, abusing data is a small part of their business and profit is a few percent of revenue, so such a fine would be devastating.

For some tech companies, profit is in the double digit percent of revenue and half of it comes from breaking the law, so the 4% are a tax they can happily pay and still be more profitable than if they followed the law.

Same misleading nonsense. If you follow the links it becomes obvious that it’s the old news banning FB from using the data on the basis of contract and legitimate interest - which they’re avoiding by claiming “consent” after people choose that they’d rather not pay a triple-digit amount per year to use the site.

No, the article is just regurgitating old news and the old misleading claim (omitting the critical part that they’re only banned from using data “on the basis of contract and legitimate interest”).

This “news” is what made Facebook start with the “agree or pay” bullshit.

Sometimes they also came up with literal malware as DRM.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal

Bullshit article/study:

These numbers are estimates based on the assumption that the Bitcoin mines run on water-dependent cooling systems typical in large data centers.

So they took the typical datacenter water consumption per MW, applied that to some estimate of Bitcoin power consumption (wouldn’t be surprised if they did the usual “use current output rates and multiply with power-per-output numbers of long obsolete hardware”, often seen in “studies” “showing” how tech X is horrible for the environment), and assumed that would be it.

All pictures of Bitcoin mines I’ve seen used (direct) free cooling which doesn’t use water. That has changed now, but simply assuming it’s the same as for normal data centers is an obviously questionable assumption.

Fun experiment: look up the CO2 intensity of electricity, look up prices for industrial electricity, look up claims of “CO2 emission per Netflix movie streamed”, then compare with the cost of your Netflix subscription and wonder whether Netflix would really be profitable if streaming was that power hungry.

(Also, the author misunderstood how this system works: “However, some data centers and crypto mines use a different system that keeps computers cool and cuts down water consumption by immersing them in a non-conductive liquid.” Now that DC has a hot liquid, which they could cool in a number of different ways, some using water some not. Which system they use to get the heat from the chip to the cooling system doesn’t matter if they aren’t freecooling)

I think there is a huge psychological difference between “spending on public good” and “here is some money”, and especially where the latter happens, it should be very clear that the money is coming from the state/nation, not the individual leading it.

That may be obvious to you, so the message doesn’t look like a problem, but I bet at least 1% of Americans think Trump personally gave them some of his personal cash out of generosity, effectively turning it into a bribe with public money. Which is exactly why Trump insisted that his name would be placed on the check. (The letter that came with it was surprisingly reasonable and clear, which is why I estimated 1% and not 5%).

Honestly, it’s kinda icky for a candidate to campaign for himself in conjunction with handing out public money, whether it’s done by a Republican (Trump with the relief checks) or a Democrat.

If they need to drop the wage threshold, the problem doesn’t seem to be a lack of skilled labor, it seems to be a lack of cheap skilled labor.

And because Hamas leaders don’t want to find their entire families (regardless of which country they are in) delivered to them in small pieces, just before they get a serving of Novichok themselves.

Either that or they try to take advantage and loot.

Or just a rate sufficient to remove and sequester 2x the amount.

Or require them to use 100% sustainable fuel to accelerate the development of such fuels.

As usual, it’s not a shortage of talent, it’s a shortage of talent willing to be exploited.

The article explicitly explains that they “needed” to hire 25 foreign workers to deal with the shortage… after they made 50 local workers quit by cutting pay.