Not really. Sure, China is able to make unpopular decisions better then democracies, but that makes them inefficient in different directions. E.g. high speed rail in areas where it is not needed but greatly lacking freight trains. Or their housing bubble.

Yeah, blame the Russians. As if the Russian revolutionaries were not fighting for the same ideals you believe in. Just by not realizing that eliminating capitalists concentrated all the power in the government and handed power to Stalin on a silver platter.

Once you come up with an economic model that both works economically and does not hand power to elected officials or some other such group, you have my support. Until then, I will keep the safe assumption that socialists have zero idea what they are talking about and would lead us to doom if we gave them the chance.

I don’t own much capital, but I live in a post communist country and I sure as hell don’t want to experience the shit our country already went through once.

Then it is not equally owned as the title says.

I also want to receive stuff for free.

Who doesn’t want to join a co-op and receive shares of the company for free. Almost no one wants to start a co-op, financing it, taking risks and responsibilities only to give shares away for free and gain nothing in exchange.

Honestly, if the app was open-source so we can check it does not leak data, I would probably have no issue with it.

Making it a separate app makes sense if google wants to allow other apps to re-use the code. No reason to have the same functionality bundled into each app separately.

And the feature, as long as it is configurable, seems useful.

The auto-install is bad but understandable. As far as I am aware, there is no easy way to mark an app as a dependency of another app so it gets automatically installed only when needed. This should be fixed, but auto-install for all is not terrible temporary solution. This does not apply when the app is closed source and may steal your data.

We probably shouldn’t, but this is a terrible example why.

https://youtu.be/YmK24VAaZrg

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_reliance

Yes, statistically.

Realistically, I suspect a lot of those statistics is organized crime. Criminals killing criminals, so not something most people need to be afraid of when walking on the street. But I have no evidence for that.

Although statistically, it should be males being afraid to walk home at night.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1388777/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-gender/

Thanks for the info. Now I may have to try it.

Do you send mail directly from your server, or do you use some intermediary?

I will admit I did not try it myself but I was under the impression it was pretty bad with the spam filters.

That actually doesn’t work. Most large email providers will put you into the spam folder unless you are a well known server. Microsoft doesn’t even bother with that and outright throws the emails away entirely. Plus, most ISPs block sending emails from residential IPs and cloud providers block sending them from cloud.

What the fuck. How did journalism get this utterly fucked?

Experts point to a phenomenon called jury nullification, which occurs when a jury votes to acquit a defendant even though they may believe they committed a crime.

No, there is no “may”! It is jury nullification only when the jury believes the defendant committed a crime. There is no “may” about it.

Fucking so afraid to actually write something they will insert this uncertain language everywhere to the point it doesn’t even make sense.

What is the point in reading your article, when even you don’t seem to believe what you are writing is correct?!

I am so tempted, so tempted to write yes. But no, at the end of the day, I don’t think speech should be regulated like that. If we as a society don’t learn to distinguish truth from bullshit, democracy can’t survive.

EU absolutely is a country.

Also, fuck you.

*their

Considering iflscience also got reading the order completely wrong, I feel the issue is with your education system in general.

I understand why you would think that, but this is not the case. Not a lawyer though, not legal advice.

There are 2 main types of causes of action for this, let’s go over them:

1. Conversion, unjust enrichment: Here, Legal eagle and other creators allege Honey took money that was supposed to go to them. Basically just theft. This does not apply to adblock, since they don’t take the money.
2. Tortious interference: Here they claim, that by removing the tracking cookie, they unlawfully interfere with the business relationship between the affiliates and the shopping platform. This could maybe apply to ad-blockers, but it is almost certainly superseded by the user explicitly wanting to remove tracking cookies, and the user has the right to do so. Saying that it is unlawful interference is like saying a builder hired by a land owner to build a fence is interfering with truckers who were using the land as a shortcut. They had no legal right to pass through the land in the first place. So the owner can commission a fence and a builder can build it. A contract between the truckers and amazon would not matter. In case of honey, it is like the builder was not hired by the owner and just built the fence to spite the truckers without owners permission.

That’s debatable, since the fraud usually has to be something a reasonable person could believe. E.g. no suing Copperfield for faking magic, even if he advertises it as real.