She claims she was pressured to ignore the rules set out by Amazon's legal team.
Those rules may or may not have had anything to do with violating copyright law. Much like Apple's legal team has very strict rules against using GPLv3 even though there would be no problem with them doing so. It would however limit Apple's ability to counter-sue and sue, which Apple's legal team/management seems to care strongly about.
Which would make things like Tesla power walls incredibly profitable. The problem is that the rate plan that is provided to the owners of solar panels pays them for electricity during peak production times, which is stupid.
Most newer solar panel installations that I know of have power walls installed with them so that you can sell your electricity to the grid during peak periods.
It's almost like they don't want to suggest a solution of simple economics. If the rate is negative, fine the rate is negative and people will collect money charging their batteries, and if the rate is $0.95 a kwhr people will dump power into the grid. I'm not sure what the fascination beyond making sure people don't cheap out and skip the battery packs.
Facebook's lawyers have a blog post where they claim that complying with a FISA warrant is a GDPR violation and anyone subject to FISA warrants can't truthfully claim to be GDPR compliant
IANAL, but: In the simplest case of a purely EU company, they would not be subject to US law, and providing the US with user data would certainly violate the GDPR. In the case of a purely US company, the GDPR would prohibit them from gathering data on EU citizens and sending it back to the US. The big multinationals, like Alphabet and Meta, have therefore established subsidiary companies in the EU (of course, there may be other reasons as well). In Meta's case, their subsiduary is based in Ireland. Meta-Ireland cannot provide data on EU customers to the US, without violating EU law, and anyway is not subject to US law.
There is the more general question of whether data on EU citizens can ever be stored on US servers. If it were, then Meta-USA could be subject to FISA. For that matter, they could do all sorts of other things in violation of the GDPR. This is an ongoing issue with (afaik) no resolution in sight.
This situation annoys the US government, because they don't like being told "no". It also does not make Meta (or Google, or Amazon, any other US tech giant) happy. They occasionally threaten to leave the EU. The response from the EU is: "fine, don't let the door hit you on the way out." Which they also don't like
So, people in Europe can't have Friends in the US and vice versa? That doesn't really work for a social networking site that isn't focusing on the purely parochial.
Interesting.
Another interesting thing is that Facebook's lawyers have a blog post where they claim that complying with a FISA warrant is a GDPR violation and anyone subject to FISA warrants can't truthfully claim to be GDPR compliant
Solution, stop voting Republican, they're the ones repeatedly blocking the IRS from providing this service.
I wouldn't be surprised to find Democrats like Anna Eschoo have also helped keep the IRS from providing this as Intuit is in her district.
What the hell does the board have to do with daily operations like safety inspections? Unless these people were responsible for constantly saying "save more money by any means necessary," I don't see a single connection to the problem from that high up. All I'm seeing is a company accused of favoring "oppressed" "minority groups" just replaced a man with a woman. Not good optics, just saying. Why not just zero the company's stock price and announce you're hiring an LGBTQ+ illegal immigrant in a wheelchair for your CEO and get it over with?
The board is the ones who approved moving headquarters away from Seattle and putting share price above safety as company goals.
This solution right here works great, so long as you dont use linode or similarly popular VPSs where so many people are doing the same thing that it gets flagged anyways
AWS IP addresses have a decent chance to work as there are several companies and government networks that put all of their machines on AWS VPCs causing all of their employees' traffic to appear to come from AWS. (I found this out when one company I was working for tried blacklisting traffic from AWS IP addresses and we got calls from customers that they couldn't access our site)
So how does Chrome provide that type of functionality for developers?
It doesn't offer that functionality, but the Chrome developer tools were generally better and easier to use to figure out CSS issues. So a reason to use Chrome/Chromium and no reason to use Firefox
Boeing is such a weird case. In a way, the Federal Government killed Boeing by encouraging them to take over the failed company MacDonell Douglas which made planes that were profitable and unreliable while Boeing made reliable planes.
After the merger MacDonell Douglas's execs were put in charge of Boeing and the engineering culture of Boeing was replaced by the profit centered culture of Macdonell Douglas and and 737 has went from the most reliable plane in the skies to a plane with a safety record closing in on that of a DC-10 (a plan whose engines only occasionally fell off)
>"Firefox has become Chrome-lite."
Perhaps more Chrome-*like* but certainly not Chrome-lite. Firefox has more features and control, not less.
>"They killed their own extensions program and introduced their slightly modified version of much more limited Chrome's webextensions in its stead for example."
1) From my understanding, the current Firefox extensions model is not more limited than Chrome's. 2) Mozilla had no choice at the time, they had to change the model so it would be possible to make the browser multi-threaded, which is something very much positive and needed. 3) The change was also needed to improve security. 4) The major addons were available pretty quickly and over time the ecosystem bounced back.
That said, we were promised more UI control in Firefox addons, to gain back some of what was lost, and that has NOT materialized, and users do have a right to be upset about that. But Chrome/ium never had it in the first place, so it is not like Firefox is worse in that regard. And, unlike Chrome/ium, Firefox has an entire "userChrome" function which allows tremendous customization of the UI. Something Chrome also never had and probably never will.
https://www.userchrome.org/ https://github.com/Aris-t2/Cus...
While many extensions were immediately ported, the Selenium IDE was not ported for years. Additionally, the current version seems to be abandonware with just one release years ago.
The Selenium IDE was a go to tool for web developers ten years ago and it was the primary reason many devs used Firefox for web development. If you needed to get to page 9 of a form you could write a test to take you to the correct page with three more clicks than just manually going through the form. If I had a bug reported in a funnel I always tried to reproduce the bug in Firefox because it was so much easier to iterate on in Firefox.
Mozilla didn't provide resources to help the Selenium IDE get ported because not many users used it, but they failed to understand that the users who used it were the ones that made the internet work well with Firefox and that losing those users would drop Firefox into a second tier browser.
It's not looking the other way.
It is being concerned that Boeing military aircraft might not be delivered. And the military isn't as concerned about a 1% failure rate in planes. as much as not getting the planes.
Some history.
Boeing was known for safety and mediocre stock performance. McDonnell Douglas was known for excellent stock performance and planes that occasionally lost engines (specifically the DC10)
This caused the high flying stock of McDonnell Douglas to crater as the company was being forced into bankruptcy.
The US government was concerned about losing some military planes that McDonnell Douglas was producing and encouraged Boeing to acquire McDonnell Douglas.
Post acquisition, the former McDonnell Douglas executives, who were in large not engineers, took over leadership of Boeing and the stock price of Boeing was one of the best performers, until the 737Max disaster.
The fixes are obvious, but it isn't clear that Boeing can afford them.
If only I still had mod points. The only way this gets resolved is if the C suite does time for several hundred counts of reckless endangerment of human life.
The assembly line has been reconfigured over the years to emphasize costs over safety. It was a deliberate decision by the management team that produced the DC-10. the 787 and 737 should probably all be grounded and Boeing forced into bankruptcy. (I say that as someone who would take a moderate financial hit from owning stock in B)
"It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." -- Rick Obidiah
