

On that we are agreed. The headline speaks of a landmark ruling, which I think is too much acclaim for a decision a higher court could just dismiss.
Joined the Mayqueeze.


On that we are agreed. The headline speaks of a landmark ruling, which I think is too much acclaim for a decision a higher court could just dismiss.


I think my sniping at Bavaria speaks for itself.
They don’t need sway as much as money and lawyers, which I imagine they have. And this verdict is probably on the worst outcome end of the scale for them. I cannot imagine they will accept a ruling that calls them daft like this one does. They will try to water down liability for their model’s fantasy summaries. Whether they succeed is a different question. But they will try, so they will appeal, so this verdict isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. Yet.
All I said is that this verdict isn’t effective yet. These headlines and sadly this article buries this fact in a sentence in the last paragraph. Blink and you miss it stuff. Lemmies tend to overlook this and declare victory over Google when this was merely the first battle of the war.


This isn’t final. Google has time to appeal. Let’s hold off on the label “landmark” until it reaches legal effectiveness. Which it probably won’t, however good a verdict by a German regional court, much less one based in Bavaria, this is in my opinion.
Google lawyers arguing in court that Google’s so-called AI results are shit anyways and people should know it is chef’s kiss.


“We will change the law” means they haven’t changed it yet. And this PM is so god damn popular in his own party, they are just trying to get his possible replacement in in an otherwise unnecessary byelection. This sounds decisive but isn’t a fait accompli by any stretch of the imagination. The tech big guns will sound amenable to such a policy but will do fuck all.


Then I fear blaming Christianity is a bit weak. I get that you are annoyed. I might be too if I could be convinced to exercise. I think you are hitting this annoyance nail with too big a hammer. Because the fact that a week consists of seven days is also due to the influence of Christianity. And even in sensible the-week-starts-on-Monday-Europe wall calendars on sale often list Sundays first. Your mobile phone probably has a setting for that as well. Take it as a lesson learned and let it go.


Does it mention that as far as this watch is concerned the week starts from Sunday?


Did you read the manual of the watch before you started using it?


Didn’t have it for ET but for Disney movies that weren’t published on VHS at all because in my region they just kept rereleasing Snowwhite and Jungle Book in theaters periodically.
I’ve recorded songs off the radio too. I have copied VHSs as well later in life when a buddy had to bring over their recorder so we could hook them up to each other.
And the first music torrent was in maybe 7th grade and up. Somebody would get a new CD for their birthday or xmas and after a couple of weeks of exclusive listening Guns’n’Roses or Metallica would go from friend to friend where everybody got themselves a copy on cassette tape. There would be strategic planning like you get Michael Jackson (we didn’t know back then) and you get U2 or whatever around December.


Yeah but it isn’t here.


If you want to get picky, Xwitter didn’t enshitify as laid out as a concept by Cory Doctorow. The best example is probably Amazon which went from being insanely user friendly to lock in users, to supplier-friendly and increasingly less so for users, until it had squeezed and shafted both groups. That’s enshitification and it doesn’t apply to Xwitter. They had problems to make money before a certain somebody bought it. They’ve been bleeding users since the eventually Nazi saluting manbaby bought it, who then wanted to sue advertisers who refused to buy ads on his service. There was no user lock-in and then a supplier lock-in. There was just shit. All their current problems are man made. By one specific man.


I would argue you cannot enshitify a service that was already shit. At this point this is more of a conshitidation.


Oh, man, this will affect tens of people.


Cannibalism hasn’t been proven yet. But even without that, rich people not getting punished isn’t mildly infuriating. We are way past that.
And the world was already shit long before we learned about any of this. Because it was possible to get away with that shit before we found out and even still after we learned a little about it.
Billionaires aren’t the majority. Turn your morose mood into a political movement that will hold them to account.


This is daft in at least 3 ways. They are not larping, the PRC’s subdivisions typically don’t have their own flags, and the design is terrible.


Wouldn’t another possibility be active fare dodging? And if they do that, can’t they just fill the station and trains with so many people until they are forced to run the train to manage the crowd? I imagine all able people will go piggyback through turnstiles to half the fare at least.
In terms of potentially fineable behavior, this might be safer than creating an ad hoc ped xing on an interstate.
Maybe the NJ locals need to weigh in on how likely the constabulary will be to make use of their firearms in such a situation.


I get it, you’re okay with it. And I would allow then to continue funding it if their environmental conscience demanded it. And if they sailed there or even flew economy I’d still allow them to pull a trigger themselves. But I think overall this idea that rich and most likely Caucasian asshole money is required to keep conservation projects in Africa going smacks of a school of post colonial thinking that I don’t subscribe to. Africans are not solely motivated by asshole money to preserve their ecosystems.


Hunting is part of conservation efforts. Hunting tourism is not necessary. Rich assholes flying around the world in private jets just at that they can shoot at a different type of animal than at home is questionable.
And I know they weren’t hunting elephants. It’s just if I were charged by a herd of elephants and I happened to hold a rifle in my hand, I’d probably be tempted to make use of it in self defense. And the animals could have hurt themselves while acting in self defense from their POV as well.


The fact that this hunting tourism exists is more than infuriating. When people die it cannot be mildly infuriating; even when a-holes kick the bucket. So why is this story here? Which bit is only mildly infuriating?
I hope the elephants are alright.


Since the UK brexited out of the Union, this link may be more tenuous to the continent.
The ruling isn’t final.