Can you point to an airtight law regarding speech that exists today - both as written and enforced? I can't.
This is a worse is better[1] situation. Specifically, I'm arguing against the MIT approach to lawmaking.
The MIT approach:
> The design must be consistent. A design is allowed to be slightly less simple and less complete to avoid inconsistency. Consistency is as important as correctness.
Thinking about laws like software terminates thought.
Sure, but I meant airtight as a point on a spectrum rather than absolute thing. Meaning: you should prefer laws which are both generic and unambiguous.
I appreciate the work you've put into this, but if someone gets into this they are likely to be looking for a next puzzle immediately. They are unlikely to become a recurring visitor; not with just a single puzzle a day. 5 or 10 might work better.
I feel you; as a pretty happy user of Johnny.Decimal over 7-ish years, I’ve preempted this a bit with symlinks. It reduces the available assignment space but saves time when brain goes alt-brain.
One observation from over the years which matters because I keep separate sustains for personal (including freelance work) and employee office work. I usually can pick just one place and remember it for the latter whereas personal is a land of struggle and experimentation.
That feels overly broad. Where is the boundary? Is it a network if you receive a USB drive after making a phone call to order something? Send a physical letter via pigeon?
For completeness it should be noted that it doesn't cover all users interacting with the program. It only covers those who are "remotely" interacting with it.
I don't recall seeing any discussion of what counts as remote.
The source code is not a clean room re-implementation of the the HDMI 2.1 spec and as such contains IP owned in one way or another by the HDMI Forum. This would almost certainly preclude them from distributing source code to non HDMI Forum members under any license according to what I could glean from the article.
Ah, thank you, this is interesting. So in a way the original IP is kind of poison which forever taints their source code, diminishing what they can do with it.
Do untagged files (like downloaded via curl) not require signing at all, or it's just lenient enough to not trigger the bugs/issues mentioned in the article (since their app is actually signed, after all)?
Nothing in GDPR gives you legal basis for that (the penalties under GDPR are paid to the state). But there isn't anything that prevents you to sue them either, so you just need to find another legal basis (like, to prove a damage) and convince the civil court. Civil courts have famously low standard (preponderance of evidence), so it doesn't sound easy, but it doesn't sound hard either.
In general case I think it might be hard to sue a company for any fixed amount of money due: it is hard to measure this, and companies are likely to low-ball the figure anyway.
Yet Meta has given a convenient, fixed number here, so perhaps such a lawsuit has a chance to succeed.
An administrative fine to a company because of GDPR violations allows the data subject to use the ruling as a basis for damages in a civil case. Further, emotional damages are allowed, also. And CJEU has reaffirmed there's no "minimum threshold" for damages. A user could claim 1 euro of damages. And there's momentum to make class action-esque "collective redress" a reality, which would be a mechanism with all the pros with class action in U.S., but with much less cons. Imagine 400 million users claiming 100 euros in damages. That's some change to spare for the company.
I wish we had a LLM to BBC-ify the otherwise sensationalized reporting elsewhere. There would definitely be a market for this kind of service. For the reverse one as well, unfortunately.
