Readit NewsIf the company does not want to comply they can simply stop operating there.
The problem is coming from the other side, the Americans are threatening to start a new trade war if the EU doesn't permit their murdermobiles on the European roads.
IMO pedestrian safety should still come above all else, but this is not an initiative coming from some EU representatives who want to own a Cybertruck. Blocking these cars can have impact on the war against Ukraine and the prices of fuel and other import products on the short term.
Any EU politician that bend over to those threats should never be elected to anything again.
They are going public.
If they get to be a memestock, they might even keep the grift going for a good while. See Tesla as a good example of this.
Either outcome is meaningless. I'll worry about it when the bank accepts internet points as mortgage repayments.
You are probably just butthurt at this ridiculous ideology being exposed for what it is.
There’s no hypocrisy there. She paid into the system. Why shouldn’t she get as much value out of it as possible?
Or perhaps she was still a dense prick to the end of her days. Who knows?
Serious, non-troll question: why bother?
If there isn't any scope outside of the current perceived existence, and we're all so much "smart dirt", then the difference between kindness and malevolence seems moot.
Note: I do subscribe to an explicit meaning to life, so this is posed more to express bewilderment at the alternative than reveal any anxiety on my end.
Curiously enough, I don't think this invites nihilism. The opposite, really. The difference between kindness and malevolence exists because we perceive a difference, and give meaning to actions - they are either kind or malevolent.
If we can give meaning to things, it is imperative that we do so, and act accordingly. It is out little defiance to the great enveloping cosmic nothing.
Jesus Christ, dude. I'm going to be honest with you. While I feel bad for you in your current state, this is a pretty disgusting thing to have done. Have you tried to make any of it better? I mean, you could name this programmer (assuming that wouldn't make it worse), and you could definitely name the incubator and everyone involved in this decision. I'm guessing this kind of thing is quite common.
If you just want someone to tell you that it's okay, I'm not going to be the one to do that. Be as sorry as you want, but what have you done to make it better for him? Even part of this post reads a bit patronizing ("In retrospect, he was harmless..."). Not "this was intrinsically wrong and we shouldn't have done this", just "he wasn't even a threat to take down". My God, dude.
I wish you well because there are vanishingly few humans I wish to see truly suffer. If you make it, I hope you work towards righting the wrongs you've done.
Just because someone might be dying, it doesn't make them nice people.
The reason they invented the standard licences is to avoid this cost and effort. Do you really want to write a 200 page legal contract for every user for software you’re giving away for free?
It would be neat to have this licese codified (Like we have MIT, GPL, etc), with the proper incentives to "ask for open source access, if I lile you, you might get it". And, of course, a "contract" that gave licensees the open source benefits.
My daughter is still a baby, so the problem is still a few years away. But I don't know how to best handle it.
In some ways, I see social media as more poisonous to the brain than alcohol or tobacco. So, forbidding - or heavily limiting - internet access sounds like a plan.
On the other hand, part of me being a parent is teaching her how to navigate the world. And part of that, wether I like or not, is using the internet. Having contact with the communication tools that exist.
The world is full of sons of bitches. If I don't teach her how to deal with that, I would be raising an idiot.
Still, a problem for the future me to ponder over.