Yes, it’s very easy to make a bad faith argument if you just randomly pull quotes, rather than actually looking at context.

Assuming “them” are the protesters

Why would you assume that? It was obviously asking about what comment the politicians have made, from the fact that they were asking about whether “they” had commented “on the reason for the protest, or just the act”.

I’m generally supportive of any and all forms of non-violent protest (by which I mean not harming human life), including these, but let’s not pretend the choice is between “standing around with placards” and “vandalise random artwork & monuments”. Blockading ports exporting coal is an excellent direct protest, or vandalising actual fossil fuel companies’ property in such a way that disrupts their ability to do business. Heck, even the classic “block roads in peak hour” is better than this (just for the love of the gods, don’t disrupt passenger trains or busways).

Don’t get me wrong, this is still ok, and it’s better than nothing at all, but there are more effective ways to protest.

In what way does that quote answer their question?

Part of being a monopoly is being anticompetitive

No it’s not. Being hit with antitrust laws requires first being a monopoly, but the monopoly state exists merely by virtue of size within the industry.

Edit: to be clear the only point I am making here is in relation to that definition you provided. Nothing more.

Apple tried this with the EU usb c but eventually backed down

Umm, what? Apple was always going to move to USB-C. The EU regulations at most hastened that by a couple of years. Their tablets and even laptop computers were using USB-C before the EU even enacted that legislation. It was only a matter of time.

But back on the subject at hand, this is nothing like that sort of bullying. This is a company being asked to build more infrastructure at their own expense, and then use that infrastructure to place its own users at risk. They’ve made a simple calculation that it’s better for their bottom line and their reputation to choose not to comply, and instead pull out of a few small markets.

There isn’t even a way to trust a 3rd party to verify someone’s age.

It depends what you mean by this. If you mean in terms of a way to trust that the third party is doing its job correctly, that’s as simple as using the government itself to do the verification after seeing some proof of age.

If you mean in terms of privacy, you can’t protect the privacy of the fact that someone got verified, but you can protect the privacy of their browsing after the fact. It’s a neat cryptographic trick called blind signatures. The end result is a token that the user holds which they can hand over to websites that tells the website “a trusted third party has verified I’m over 18” but would not have to reveal any more information about them than that. But even if the government was that trusted third party, and they asked the websites to hand over all their logs, the government would still not be able to trace your views back to you, because the token you hold is one they never saw.

This is, in my opinion, still a bad idea. I am in no way advocating for this policy. There’s still the mere fact that you have to go up to someone and basically register yourself as a porn viewer, which is fucked up. Maybe if these tokens were used in other ways, like instead of showing your licence at bars, it could be less bad (though there are other practical reasons I don’t think that would work) because the tokens could be less directly associated with porn. But it’s still an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Not to mention the cost that adding all this would put on the government—or, if they charge for these tokens, the people using it—for what actual gain, exactly?

I’m merely pointing out that from a purely technical perspective, this is quite different from when governments request back doors into chat encryption. This actually can be done. It just shouldn’t, for non-technical reasons.

Ah damn. I just came across the first time I wanted to actually use this. It requires opt-in from both ends‽ No wonder people aren’t upset, the damn thing is nearly useless.

Oh I agree. I love C#. My uni taught most of its classes in Java, but my work has been mostly C#, and it’s a huge step up. It would be my choice 100% of the time if starting a new project where the decision is between those two. But if I were using Java via OpenJDK, I wouldn’t be afraid of a lawsuit; that’s the only point I wanted to make.

It was expensive for Google, but they’ve done the hard work of establishing the precedent. It’s much easier to fight when you have a strong binding precedent on your side.

Oracle might some day decide that they’re an IP violation like they did with Google’s Android

They lost that case. It went all the way to the US Supreme Court and set a binding precedent that an API re-implementation falls under the Fair Use doctrine. Maybe Oracle could try some excuse to say that OpenJDK is different enough from what Android did for that precedent to apply, but it would be a major uphill battle, and they know it.

Are you thinking of “content-aware fill”? Generative fill is, as far as I’m aware, much, much newer and uses newer generative AI. Content-aware fill is basically clever automatic clone stamping.

If you’re using it professionally, you need your Photoshop to be properly licensed.

If you’re not using it professionally, there’s no need for proper licenses. And thus you can…acquire Photoshop in a way that doesn’t involve it calling back to Adobe’s systems.

Why begrudgingly, may I ask?

They could require the app to connect once every 30 days or similar in order to keep functioning.

Wait, is this just projects stored in your online Adobe cloud account, or are they even stealing your content if you’re just using their desktop software? Because one of these is way, way worse than the other, even if neither is exactly good…

I know some Mastodon users were really unhappy at the existence of this back when it was first announced. But as far as I’m concerned it’s entirely a good thing. Even less centralisation, and it’s not like any content shared on Mastodon could be taken to be private at all anyway.

Interesting. This is certainly not the first time there have been markdown parsing inconsistencies between clients on Lemmy, the most obvious example being _subscript and ^superscript, especially when ~multiple words~ ^get used^ or you use ^reddit ^style ^(superscript text).

But yeah, checking just now on Jerboa you’re right, it does display correctly the way you did it. I first saw it on the web in lemmy-ui, which doesn’t display it properly, unless you use the triple backticks.

Wtf kind of Randian hellscape nonsense is this? They should be allowed to charge double to exploit people who are already disadvantaged by the way other companies are treating them? Fuck this nonsense.

Go create your own bear-infested village somewhere nobody with any morals has to live near you. But this time do it from scratch rather than ruining things for the people already living there.

line 2
    return False
    ^^^^^^
IndentationError: expected an indented block after function definition on line 1