It is too early to say whether the UK will qualify. Right now, we are still in the transition period. While in the transition period, things are mostly as if the UK were still in the EU. After the transition period, unless and until repealed, the Data Protection Act 2018 will remain in effect, with or without a deal. If it ends without a deal, that law still being in effect may allow the EU to conclude that the UK's data protection standards are sufficient. If it ends with a deal, further specific guarantees regarding the GDPR may be included in the deal.

There is another significant problem: we would like to make sure that if service B depends on service A, service B only starts when service A is ready, not as soon as service A is started, and we would at the same time like to run services under a service manager that restarts services, logs errors, or whatever if they crash. The former problem is traditionally handled by launching the main process in the foreground, which forks and exits when ready. The latter problem traditionally requires disallowing the main process from forking, as forking does not provide the service manager with enough information about which process to monitor. Systemd can handle both at the same time, look up sd_notify for details.

The witness statements suggest Minsky did not have sex with the woman, and that she can't remember what age she was, so your description of his actions as statutory rape are wrong.

I am going by her answer to "Where did you go to have sex with Marvin Minsky?", which was "I believe it was the U.S. Virgin Islands, Jeff's -- sorry, Jeffrey Epstein's island in the U.S. Virgin Islands." As for whether she remembers her exact age, that obviously does not matter. If others are able to determine she would have been 17 at the time, she was 17 at the time.

A comment he has since retracted, acknowledging that he was at the time unaware of the psychological impacts that such an encounter could cause.

A comment he had retracted on September 14, after he made his comments on Minsky on September 11 and 12. We were talking about whether it was reasonable for others to be upset by Stallman's comments. You cannot take anything he did after he made those comments into account.

Stallman's comments on then 73-year-old Marvin Minsky's statutory rape of a then 17-year-old girl, rejecting the use of the term "sexual assault" for this act because according to RMS, MM would have believed it was consensual, were very much in line with a years-old comment of his stating that he saw no problem in sexual relations between adults and children if the children agreed to it. Do you really need someone to spell out how this upsets people?

It's both. His comments have been widely misreported. If they had been accurately reported, people would still have been upset, and understandably so, but perhaps not to the same extent.

It is not limited to the curly brace scope. That's how you can do

if (int i = 0) {} else { return i; }

An if statement starts a new scope, as if the whole if statement were in curly braces. That can be useful to avoid redefinition errors for things like

if (int err = f()) { return err; }
if (int err = g()) { return err; }

but yes, at other times it can be a pain.

It's not. The word race was quoted, racism wasn't. As such, it should be read as something along the lines of "Racism wasn't related to your understanding of race."

This was a reasonable point to make: the words race and racism are very often used in ways that contradict GGP's understanding of race.

I am confused by their claim:

The draft directive does not create any new rights for creatives and journalists. It merely ensures that their existing rights are better enforced. Nor does the draft directive create new obligations for online platforms or news aggregators, but ensures that existing obligations are better respected. What is currently legal and permitted to share will remain legal and permitted to share.

combined with

The draft directive intends to oblige giant internet platforms and news aggregators (like YouTube or GoogleNews) to pay content creators (artists/musicians/actors and news houses and their journalists) what they truly owe them;

Is Google News legal under current laws? If so, how would Google News be affected by new legislation that continues to allow everything that is currently legal? If not, how do current laws fail to stop it?

(YouTube is a different story. I can see that there is a problem there, and although I am not convinced the new laws will be an improvement, I can see that current laws do fail to stop it.)

"Unencumbered" is not wholly true. Visual Studio Express was free of charge for all. Visual Studio Community cannot legally be used by many companies.

Twitter never said they were taking action against bots. They are taking action against fake accounts. There are plenty of bots that are not fake accounts, include in their name or description that they're a bot, do not disrupt any conversations, do not mislead users. That's explicitly allowed. Misleading reporting like this may end up getting those accounts reported too.

I'm not sure. US Courts require US based companies to provide records to law enforcement, even if the records are outside the US; an action with has caused a bit of consternation in countries affected by the ruling.

That's a good point, but that's not so much because it requires an action to be done in that country, it's because that action potentially conflicts with the rights of the non-US people whose data is held in those records. There's no such conflict here.

It's about protecting the rights of Aptoide, a Portuguese entity, against the actions of Google, a business with a legal presence in Portugal. If Google only violates Aptoide's rights outside Portugal, a Portuguese court can still take action against that: having to respect the rights recognised or granted by a country to its citizens and companies is part of the cost of doing business in that country. If a US-based app store sued Google for the same reason, and a US court ruled that Google had to stop interfering, even outside the US, no, I do not believe there would be any uproar.

The law requires a certain number of female directors, not a certain number of non-male directors. California is one of the states that recognises and and is scheduled to allow "nonbinary" as a third gender in addition to "male" and "female", with no distinction between "neither male and female", "both male and female", and any other options, so presumably anyone using that option would not be counted. If challenged, it could result in an interesting discrimination lawsuit.

It's right there in the comment you were responding to. Skipping bail is itself an offense. Are you suggesting he's not guilty of that? It's similar to how, if the police lawfully try to arrest you for, say, a burglary you had nothing to do with, you resist arrest, and the police then find you weren't guilty of burglary and don't attempt to charge you with that, you can still be charged and convicted for resisting arrest.

But the operator of the site hosting the SHA-256 values will still need to obtain a certificate.

Indeed.

Is it more a matter of setting up Certbot to provision one certificate for the hash site rather than a separate certificate for each mirror site?

The concern was that for large (multi-gigabyte) files, HTTPS becomes a waste of resources. I'm not going to comment one way or another on the correctness of that claim, but setting up a single server to accept both HTTP and HTTPS connections is trivial, and then the client can make the choice to download the large file from that server over HTTP, and the hash from that same server over HTTPS. It wasn't my idea to have the full file and the hash come from different servers, although that is indeed an option as well.