Best I’ve been able to explain it is that it’s a country build on hope and dreams, which are not compatible with reality and truth.

Democracy isn’t really meant to prevent something the majority wants.

If the majority wants a criminal to lead the country they’ll elect them, or someone with the same policies, or someone who promises to put the criminal in power. The end result isn’t all that different, and the latter two could be worse in some ways.

In a democracy the majority rules, and should they decide to put a lunatic in charge, well, that would be the least of your problems.

All reasonable arguments not to vote for Harris. But no arguments whatsoever to vote for Trump.

And unless the archaic and infuriatingly flawed election system is fixed, you’ve got a civic duty to pick the lesser of two evils.

If you want a system that cannot be abused then don’t remove the safeguards designed to fix mistakes.

Allowed innocents to be released from prison, and allow the disenfranchised to regain their voting rights.

This is why there is always a higher power to overrule previous decisions, and when it comes to elections there is no higher power than a majority.

It’s one of those safe-guards that democracy implements that’s currently having rather unintended consequences.

The reasoning is that taking away voting rights is far too easy to abuse, and if a majority of people agree with whomever you wanted to prevent from voting/getting elected then you’re fucked anyway.

Which, incidentally, is looking like a very real possibility right now.

Well, who did you trust to build your hardware?

Lenovo definitely deserves to be banned after that shit they pulled with the malicious root certificates.

That same description applies to downloading a zipped file.

Reminds me of the time I did roughly the same thing trying to get people to move away from internet explorer.

I won’t pretend that its popularity is in any way proportional to its quality, but I enjoyed it and so did many others so she must have done something right. Calling a work that many people enjoy trash just sounds a bit elitist to me.

Feel free to call the author whatever you want though, at this point I’ve no respect left for her.

Just so I got this clear, making it illegal to tell advertisers when their ads are running next to dangerous or illegal content is a freedom of speech win?

Wouldn’t surprise me if even Unicode advices against using Roman numerals depending on meaning.

It was mostly a joke (though frankly if you try any implementation more complicated than that joke you’re going to have a bad time).

The biggest number that can be defined in fewer than twenty words.

It’s simple ⅯⅯⅩⅩⅣis a number, MMXXIV is not.

Education has really failed to impress upon people the importance of asking questions. It’s amazing how much time is wasted on making people learn answers to questions they don’t even know how to ask.

Please tell me someone thought about a switch to take them offline.

Technically he was 19. Also under Dutch law the term rape would imply the use of force, which was either not the case or not considered proven hence why the sentence ended up being lowered.

Still awful. Just trying to get the fact straight so people can judge for themselves.

The reason they have to include the type of tech in the law is because that tech made it possible for unskilled bad actors to get on it

Yeah, and that’s the part I don’t like. If you can’t define why it’s bad without taking into account the skill level of the criminal then I’m not convinced it’s bad.

As you point out defamation is already illegal and deliberately spreading false information about someone with the intent to harm their reputation is obviously wrong and way easier to define.

And is that not why you consider a painting less ‘bad’? Because it couldn’t be misconstrued as evidence? Note that the act explicitly says a digital forgery should be considered a forgery even when it’s made abundantly clear that it’s not authentic.

Fair, but then this law serves no purpose. The thing it was designed to prevent was already illegal.

The worrying aspect of these laws are always that they focus too much on the method. This law claims to be about preventing a particular new technology, but then goes on to apply to all software.

And frankly if you need a clause about how someone is making fake pornography of someone then something is off. Something shouldn’t be illegal simply because it is easy.

Deepfakes shouldn’t be any more or less illegal than photos made of a doppelgänger or an extremely photorealistic painting (and does photorealism even matter? To the victims, I mean.). A good law should explain why those actions are illegal and when and not just restrict itself to applying solely to ‘technology’ and say oh if it only restricts technology then we should be all right.