Besides providing verbatim records of who said what, there is a second can of worms in forming any sort of binding agreement if the two sides of the agreement are having two different conversations.
I think this is what the part about the missed nuance means.
Once this has been implemented, something worse can be implemented.
I don’t like these slippery slope arguments. You might as well reduce it to any legislation.
Once people are allowed to make laws, bad people can make bad laws.
Which is why we must continue to vote in the right people, not abandon the concept of laws.
In this case, I don’t doubt that copyright infringement and general censorship are on some people’s agenda.
But this current proposal is bad enough itself and should be opposed because of that and not because someone might make other, even worse proposals in the future.
France has plenty of nuclear power.
It doesn’t help with renewable peaks in the slightest.
What is needed are storage solutions and flexible usage that can utilize cheap power at peak times.
That’s why the button says “purchase” instead of “buy”
First off, they’re synonyms
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purchase#synonyms
Now, I’m certainly no expert on the US legal system. It certainly seems silly if you could circumvent entire laws just by using synonyms but what do I know.
However I have been talking about other countries where that is not the case and where the language is not English.
So It really doesn’t matter whether it say “buy” or “purchase” in English when it’s “kaufen” in German or “acheter” in French.
Why is ‘threatened’ in quotation marks?
You typically don’t get “ownership rights” when you purchase a game on Steam. You’ll typically be purchasing a licence to play the game, which could be taken away at any point.
That is certainly what Valve thinks and writes in their TOS but if their store has a big button that says “BUY HALO” then courts may very well decide that you actually bought Halo.
And many countries have a strict legal definition of what buying means that cannot be overruled by some company’s TOS.
This is explicitly against their TOS. Whether or not you’ll be found out is a whole other matter
Also whether or not those TOS are legally enforceable in every single country Valve operates in.
Piracy is a service problem
The person who started the thread claimed that NSFW photos they had deleted “years ago” were back on their phone.
Another Reddit user said that they saw photos from 2016 show up as new images but that they didn’t think they’d ever deleted them. And a person claimed in a later post that “around 300” of their old pictures, some of which were “revealing,”
Sorry, had a brainfart.
masculine name + feminine surname is just… wrong
I don’t quite understand what you mean.
The surname is the family name and is typically not gendered in Germany.
Edit: I seem to have completely blanked out on the preceding sentence about other origins. I can see that this might be an issue.
Depends.
IF only some companies increase wages then they can probably reduce turnover. Though that might cause more turnover in other companies that don’t increase wages.
If wages rise through the board and the better paying companies before remain the better paying companies after then that probably has little effect.
I suppose higher overall wages could reduce the pressure to look for a better paying job because your current one doesn’t cover costs of living.
This could only work if inflation were driven by wages.
If the UK is anything like the rest of the world right now, then that is not the cause. Supply shortages are.
So they would have to either:
A) accept inflation and INCREASE wages to compensate for higher costs of living, or
B) increase production and thereby supply to reduce scarcity induced prices.
(possibly also C) be a member of a large free trade zone that makes importing cheaper but that ship has sailed for now)
I’ll take “German companies in the 1940s” for 100, Alex.
One should acknowledge that this is not on Netflix alone.
Other media companies pulling their content to set up their own streaming services has fractured the market and made each individual service much worse in the process.
That’s perfectly fine.
I was just confused because I cannot see the “less inflammatory headline” in the archive.
Wait, is that the original title?
Is the European Union’s Economy Really Worse Off Than America’s?
So OP changed it to that based on the archive version?
Because right now the linked archive version reads
What’s the Matter With Europe?
The archive also seems to have a version history, and all versions show the same title.
I’m not sure they would even need to tighten it.
See edit.
This all seems so implausible.
They can’t cut funding but they can enact all that?
strategy to explicitly target Hungary’s economic weaknesses, imperil its currency and drive a collapse in investor confidence in a bid to hurt “jobs and growth”
How? Supposedly there is a document outlining all this, then why not mention how this is supposed to work?
And how are these plans supposed to compel Hungary to do something if they are secret?
That has already become outdated, at least according to some economists.
Banks can just create loans out of thin air without having to check their own reserves first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation#Credit_theory_of_money