Yeah maybe that could work. I definitely agree that there’s ways to get good anchor points. Maybe through cross-check with wireless networks even.

But wouldn’t you scramble the precision with that? Stations can be quite big and anchoring to the station location means you already start with an offset to your location.

Depending on the accuracy over time, they could pinpoint a location while the user is sleeping and than use that as an anchor for the day.

But everything about that is speculative; let’s see where this goes first.

I already commented this on another post about chat control but I still stand by what I said before so imma be a dick and put the original comment here as well:

Imagine there’s one phone type with one security level. And now they introduce a second phone. It has less security. Now everyone has to switch to the weaker phone.

Soooo, now who gets the stronger phones? Government employees? The military? Politicians? Agencies?

The less the strong phones you give out, the more authoritarian the measure. But the more the strong phones you give out, the higher the chance of misuse or mishandling. You will now have a black market for secure phones, giving them out to criminals. You will now have people with strong phones having a higher right of privacy, giving them more protection against the state itself.

Now let’s add more factors. Someone loses their stronger phone. We now have a potentially untraceable strong phone. The government is losing control over those. Now you have 5 different tiers of secure phones. But people are people and the more complicated, the more things can go wrong. Now let’s add in slightly more authoritarian states like Hungary. There’s a good chance they will instantly start spying on journalists. Or give opposition parties the weaker phones by accident.

Now add in foreign agencies. China’s digital government agencies are very efficient. Imagine they get the keys to the weaker phones. Great, now China can effectively monitor 99% of the EU. And now even if an EU member has a strong phone, they just listen in his wife’s phone, and they get the information anyway. Now what about if a spy from North Korea gets the keys and starts finding bank information on the stronger phones? They now have new super annoying ways of stealing billions of dollars from the EU and covertly as well if they do it right.

As you can see, making some people’s security weaker on purpose is a lose lose game. It never works. There’s way too many cooks in the kitchen in the EU for this kind of stuff to stay in line, and there WILL be misuse, one way or the other.

Wrong way around. The law doesn’t decide how we feel, the law is written after society.

If people think something is really bad objectively, then politicians create laws.

So first we need to decide how we feel, then politicians create laws on that. In Europe, countries tend to be more privacy and security first, and that’s why a lot of them already have stricter rules in place.

And Meta also doesn’t tell us how to think, they just tell us how they treat our posts, and the rest is up to lawyers if it comes to a specific dispute.

You don’t have to agree with laws ever. But for the meantime, you do have to follow them.

Imagine there’s one phone type with one security level. And now they introduce a second phone. It has less security. Now everyone has to switch to the weaker phone.

Soooo, now who gets the stronger phones? Government employees? The military? Politicians? Agencies?

The less the strong phones you give out, the more authoritarian the measure. But the more the strong phones you give out, the higher the chance of misuse or mishandling. You will now have a black market for secure phones, giving them out to criminals. You will now have people with strong phones having a higher right of privacy, giving them more protection against the state itself.

Now let’s add more factors. Someone loses their stronger phone. We now have a potentially untraceable strong phone. The government is losing control over those. Now you have 5 different tiers of secure phones. But people are people and the more complicated, the more things can go wrong. Now let’s add in slightly more authoritarian states like Hungary. There’s a good chance they will instantly start spying on journalists. Or give opposition parties the weaker phones by accident.

Now add in foreign agencies. China’s digital government agencies are very efficient. Imagine they get the keys to the weaker phones. Great, now China can effectively monitor 99% of the EU. And now even if an EU member has a strong phone, they just listen in his wife’s phone, and they get the information anyway. Now what about if a spy from North Korea gets the keys and starts finding bank information on the stronger phones? They now have new super annoying ways of stealing billions of dollars from the EU and covertly as well if they do it right.

As you can see, making some people’s security weaker on purpose is a lose lose game. It never works. There’s way too many cooks in the kitchen in the EU for this kind of stuff to stay in line, and there WILL be misuse, one way or the other.

What a bullshit law. If things have flaws, they don’t just have flaws for the benefit of police or government agencies. They have flaws for anyone that knows them or discovers them. This stuff will still be accessible for smart criminals, even more so in corrupt governments.

An encryption with exploits is not an encryption, it’s a time bomb and it will blow up in your face at the worst moment.

Power move over Twitter.

Yes vpn all the way.

I use remote access software for my PC and VPN is the only way I can be safe.

Well I can tell you what’s happening right now because of Chevron deference and it’s stupid af.

Look at Sackett v EPA 2022: a couple bought a lot,began filling up the ground with dirt to a lay foundation. The EPA stepped in, declared the stuff they filled up to be “Waters of the United States” and found they had violated environmental protection regulations. We’re not talking river, lake or God forbid, an ocean. We’re talking somewhere between small water body and puddle.

Why were they able to do that? Chevron deference meant that the EPA in this case is not clear on the exact definition surrounding this water body. So they decided it’s included in the “Waters of the United States”. You know the worst part? If a court rules differently on the definition, they are allowed to discard that definition and instead use their own.

And this is what I mean. There’s no reason to give agency such broad unchecked power. Now even though this water dispute is annoying for the couple, it’s rather silly on paper. Now imagine the same with the NSA or CIA. Suddenly this is not as silly anymore.

There’s a great Livestream on YouTube where a well versed lawyer gives a quick overview on that case and why Chevron deference is so dangerous but unfortunately I can’t find it anymore.

The bottom line is, you can’t ask agencies to defer to a court before making any small decision, but you also can’t just let them make their own legal definitions. There has to be something in between. It’s not working rn.

Idk what’s meant with chaos. Chevron deference has been around for a while and it overbroadens the powers of federal agencies to a point where you could say they are judge and jury in their own case, while also having no accountability in practice to the judicial branch.

TL;DR Chevron deference bad, new law on this is good. I disagree with the article.

I hate that the joke hits, just as the shit does the fan at Boeing.

OTT was a multiband compressor setting. It was called “over the top” or short OTT. For about 15y now it’s been an industry standard for EDM. Technically a lot of other compressors might be able to replicate (assuming they simulate the same crossovers and upward as well as downward compression), but it still is a very specific configuration.

Hope this helps.

This is the most legally sound argument against it.

Sure it’s bad to diddle kids, but it’s even worse to not have diddled kids, be accused and falsely convicted, have you genitals removed, and then on appeals the court is like “yeah sry bro they fucked that up, just reverse it”.

Although a lot of people think the death penalty is bad for financial or logistical reasons, but in my opinion the biggest reason against it is that there’s no quick way to revive a person when a court later on says they got it wrong.

Regarding the appearance of impropriety these facts are pretty straightforward.

If he recuses himself, he loses his voice in this case, if he doesn’t, the supreme Court loses it’s trustworthiness.

He chose, and he didn’t do it wisely. Most people in power don’t think of the consequences right up until the consequences and it looks to me like it takes a civil war for everyone to realize how badly they need trust in the system.

Nope. I’m not sure which law states that a convicted felon can’t vote, but I know for sure it takes quite a few years to change such foundational laws and this will not happen quickly enough.

It can happen for the election after Biden v Trump tho.

Yeah that and my PC randomly decides to crash and restart now without blue screen.

I already got upgraded. Notice the passive voice. That shit should be illegal.

Yeah that one works.

And there’s so much more you could criticize anyway:

Edge? No thx, if I want it I will install it myself.

TPM? Wtf bro, take it out.

…

I would agree with that from what I’ve seen. She absolutely killed the case and what she is doing is highly unusual in it’s totality and the appearance to an outsider is pretty grim, but she would have to do something without any legal basis or similar. Just being elected by the guy that has a case pending in front of you is not enough. There is precedent for this.

Mind you even then, recusal is probably the only thing that would happen anyway. Removal is super unlikely. I would say winning the lottery levels of unlikely.

Yeah, you know what, he’s probably right. And I admit this is scary. This vote determines the amount of damage he is capable of. He tried overthrowing the government once, he will try to do it again. Either covertly or overtly.