Hey man,

We're in the business of selling hammers. So if all the problems look like a nail that's great for our company! /S

I wholeheartedly agree with you!

How is the first action of a lawyer not to demand a new judge because this is a conflict of interest?

This article ruined my day when I read it in the newspaper.

Somebody does something absolutely retarded in traffic and if you criticize them you get run over.

No wonder I hate going outside.

Assembly required after shipping.

He's starting to lose his (orange) glow it seems.

Due to budget cuts the heat shield for re-entry was cut. Thanks to these budget cuts we gave everybody in the lower echelons of your company a big fat bonus.

We hope you have a pleasant stay in space.

Look there's a concept of a plan alright!?

A tech billionaire responsible for creating the laws his own companies run under? What could go wrong.

I looked into that at one point, but 15$/month is quite steep just for that ( imo )

The fact the family can't sue. They absolutely can (edit: in my opinion). Disney Lawyers believe they can't ( edit: in their opinion). But wether or not they can is up to a judge in this case. And not up to Disney.

So saying they can't is false until there is actual clarity.

Edit: that is my opinion of course

Dark MAGA? I'm surprised he isn't X-MAGA.

What could go wrong when you let an ad company dictate the browser standards/rules.

I know we have Firefox and some forks like librewolf, but percentage wise it feels like a lost battle ( even if I am on Firefox ).

If only people switched en masse to Firefox for the ad blocker. Wouldn't that be something... One big collective FU to Google.

Oh well. One can dream I guess.

They can believe all they want. Unless it's ruled and a precedent is set, the statement is false.

I hope people stop believing they have that kind of power, but decide not to do it from the goodness of their heart or bad publicity.

I should hope the actual law still has more relevance than a ToS.

That was something Disney Lawyers claimed, but was never actually agreed/enforced.

So it doesn't actually hold any weight until a court actually rules on it.

I use the fusion VPN function of my Asus router so new devices and specific devices can only use the VPN. Other devices can access.internet without the VPN.

It's pretty stable. I think I've had the connection ( wireguard ) drop twice so that I had to reconnect it. Not sure if that is related to the VPN on Asus though.

The reason not all devices use the VPN is because there's a bunch of streaming sites ( local ) that claim you're not in the country while the VPN is. Or it just doesn't allow you to play the videos.

I mean sure, but I think the point is that the average Joe would probably already have a collection agency harassing them while he's still in the "it's all just a misunderstanding probably. Let's just ask him again." situation

Do you mean pasting a link and proton shows it inline? Or pasting a link to an image and proton includes it as an attachment? Or something else entirely?

If it's too hard to protect, you shouldn't have it in the first place.

So all the misery in the world is related to webdevs trying to parse html with regex?

You bastards.

I also wonder what the OS is like. I need things like OxygenOS from OnePlus or something close to stock android.

All the bullshit UI from Samsung or Huawei or whatever is just atrocious. Terrible UI, no longtime support. Extra account shoehorned in.