A simple "the law requires us to" somewhere in that quote would have gone a long way to convey displeasure at their arm being twisted. But nothing in that quote suggests any arm twisting, and why should google of all corporations be given the benefit of the doubt? They look like eager and willing collaborators.
Large Corporations will often have government enact laws they know would be unpopular policies for a variety of reasons... Many times companies will even publicly opposes the very laws they actually support behind the scenes.
Not saying that is the case here, but it pretty common for corporations to use government as their tool
If they want us to believe they're displeased at this requirement, why don't they say so? Google has certainly complained and protested about other laws before.
> In response to multiple complaints we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 15 results from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaints that caused the removals at LumenDatabase.org:
You're comparing a quote from an article clearly being written in the context of this Australian law to the actual quote from Google's implementation of DMCa law. There is nothing in your quote indicating they are "protesting" DMCA law.
Here is the full quote.
> Over the coming month, we will also be introducing a new age assurance step on YouTube and Google Play. This added step is informed by the Australian Online Safety (Restricted Access Systems) Declaration, which requires platforms to take reasonable steps to confirm users are adults in order to access content that is potentially inappropriate for viewers under 18.
> This is in line with the actions we took in the European Union in response to the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD).
> As part of this process some Australian users may be asked to provide additional proof of age when attempting to watch mature content on YouTube or downloading content on Google Play. If our systems are unable to establish that a viewer is above the age of 18, we will request that they provide a valid ID or credit card to verify their age. We’ve built our age-verification process in keeping with Google’s Privacy and Security Principles.
Pulling out a quote and then saying "they don't mention the law", when they actually do mention the law a few lines above is frankly... a bad objection.
They aren't required to disclose any DMCA removals, but choose to anyway, citing the law by name. Pointing out that a law is requiring them to do something is the least anybody can do if they object to that law's requirements. The omission of such a statement is sufficient evidence to conclude they are willing collaborators. A tech corporation like Google does not deserve the benefit of the doubt anyway.
Are you still not following that this "omission" is something you've entirely made up in your own mind by selectively copying one quote from an entire article?
The text you quoted does not seem to convey any displeasure at the law. Think what you like.
> This added step is informed by
Why so passive? Why not "required by"?
> We’ve built our age-verification process in keeping with Google’s Privacy and Security Principles.
Why not omit this apologia?
Also, that statement about the DMCA is on every single search page with DMCA omissions. Do you think Google is going to cite the ID law by name on every page requiring it? I guess we'll find out, but I'm not holding my breath for this.
1) For Google to "complain" about the law and then still enforce it is just a toothless objection, virtue signaling. At least in the case of the LumenDatabase.org notice, their complaint actually serves a valid purpose of subverting the law (by allowing the user to see the offending domains.)
2) Google is a US corporation. If it is unhappy with US laws, it could be considered perhaps reasonable or even responsible for it to voice its concerns as a "corporate person" while it continues to fulfill its legal obligations. But it's a guest in Australia. If it doesn't want to obey the laws enacted by the people of Australia in Australia, it doesn't have to. After exhausting any judicial remedies, it can simply choose to leave Australia voluntarily. But to continue to reap Australian dollars while being demonstratively surly about it, could come across as disrespectful to the people of Australia. It would be as if someone came as a "plus one" to an exclusive party at your house, and then vocally complained the entire time that they were "forced" to remove their shoes.
If I've learned anything from countless gun control debates online, it's that laughing at your opposition for misusing technical terminology is the best way to win a debate.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them" - Thomas Jefferson
No of course not, animals are soulless automatons without any relatable emotion or reason that humans could ever perceive let alone understand. Anybody who thinks otherwise is just deluded by anthropomorphization and overzealous pattern matching.
An angry dog? No such thing, anger is a human emotion. A happy dog? Again, no such thing. A sad dog? Never existed, sadness is uniquely human.
You could be correct, of course. Your viewpoint is basically the same one that Descartes argued for 400 odd years ago.
Or it could be that you personally can't empathize with dogs or other animals, so you think they have no feelings. (IIRC some people made that criticism of Descartes.)
The major difference with humans as compared to other animals is that we can use language, which means we can describe what we are thinking and feeling in elaborate detail. But that does not mean animals who can't use language must necessarily have no feelings at all, just because they can't describe them verbally.
The way to investigate this question is not by dogmatic pronouncements but by looking at evidence. People who spend a lot of time with animals use much the same nonverbal cues to read their emotions as we all do with other humans. Since in both cases predicting behavior based on those cues works reasonably well, it is reasonable to conclude that the underlying causes inside the animal or the person are at least somewhat similar.
I think POSIX compliance of interactive shells is completely irrelevant. POSIX shells are relevant when you're writing scripts that will be distributed, but there's no reason that needs to be done with the same shell you use interactively. I use fish presently and zsh before that for nearly 15 years, but my shell scripts have always started with #!/bin/sh
It's not like fish installs to /bin/sh, nor are /bin/sh scripts executed using fish just because your interactive shell is fish. I guess these are the two misconceptions the common worries are based on?
Same. I've been using fish forever. Scripts that use sh or bash still work fine.
The fish scripting language is much easier to read and write than bash (for someone that doesn't write many scripts). So for local scripts I use it but for anything shared it's still bash scripts.
Yeah I agree POSIX compliance is irrelevant in the interactive usage context, the only issue that rose here and there were command substitutions mostly, something which this release takes care of.
The sole reason I was contemplating switching to zsh in regards to POSIX was the fact my shell scripting knowledge is rather shallow and I could perhaps improve it a bit while working on functions I write for personal interactive use.. Needless to say I've written them in fish haha.. If my assumptions are right what I need to master is combining properly the coreutils and the general mentality of piping things from one command to another etc - I could be wrong tho
Same here, totally don’t get the whole compatibility argument. If I need to script anything of any complexity I use a more proper programming language anyway such as Python, Ruby, Julia or maybe even Go as it makes distributing apps/scripts real easy.
Yes because consumers want to know how the hardware performs for their existing catalog of games, many if not all of which won't be ported? Obviously depends on what you play etc
There's nothing wrong with reporting the level of performance you'll get for emulated games too, but the claim being made is that the hardware can't do better than that.
To make the headline accurate, you have to add a disclaimer, going from:
>Apple's new M1 Ultra isn't faster than an RTX 3090
to
>Apple's new M1 Ultra isn't faster than an RTX 3090 when running x86 games under emulation
I wonder if somewhere out there on the web there's an architect forum where architects are whining about wheelchair ramps like the webdevs in these discussions always seem to.
There absolutely is. I used to work for a general contractor and they hate the Americans with disabilities act, OSHA, etc. The suits just see it as overhead, and the grunts just see it as more work they have to do before they can go to the bar.
Exactly this. I'd like to think architects take pride in building elegant structures that are inviting and accomodating to everyone. Where is our professional pride?
