I wonder where that influence is coming from?
The political suicide of the left in the last 10 years ?
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 698
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 698
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
This is the start of corporations trying to completely phase out owning your own hardware.
No, this is just a company that is trying to rename the old leasing concept.
This needs to fail hard or it will spread to every other major vendor. But in this timeline every evil deed seems to succeed and be rewarded. Be sure to hoard your old hardware, you’ll likely need it later.
In the enterprise world this is already a thing, companies already lease many devices (pc, laptop, copy machines, cars, phones etc), it not seems to be that much different.
In the private world, if you have the option to keep the laptop at the end the the rent period, you basically paid for the laptop in instalments, which again it nothing really new, it is already used for phones.
In my opinion the only real big problem is if they stop selling the laptop and only allow you to rent them
Wait, AfD, Reform and the like where not subsided by the Russian last week ?
True only if the resource hog process grows progressively, else the daemon is in the same situation and the kernel limits are the only way since it stops the process before.
But yes, a daemon could be an interesting solution
The kernel has a way to assign resources to each and every process, try to google for "Linux kernel limits" or "linux cgroup cpu limit".
The problem is knowing which process cause the load, but if you cannot even htop, then I doubt a daemon could do something.
Yes, and everyone do it, no news here.
Which is why they’re currently not very good, yes.
They are not very good because the only way to make them work is to adopt a "white list" approach: you don't list what you ban but only what you allow. But that way make basically every phone/tablet basically useless outside very specific situations. If you simply ban a site, the same site will come up with another name, and another, and another... (and it work also for IPs)
Mandating them by law would probably speed up development,
Not really sure about that.
and either way, you’re trying to thwart most kids/teenagers, not professional hackers.
And here, while you are right about the idea, you are wrong about how it will end.
It doesn’t really matter if a couple of kids can circumvent it if the methods are too difficult for the type of kids who barely even know how to use a PC, which seems to be most of them nowadays. Plus, many kids aren’t actually willing to break the law just to access TikTok.
Point is that after a couple of kids circumvent it does not matter if the methods are difficult or not, they will be passed to other kids, I've seen this too many times to be so naive to not understand that with law mandated filters it would not happen.Granted, maybe some kids will not try it, but these kids are the one who would not open a social network profile if their parent say them to not do it.
I never said that it’s impossible to circumvent. It’s just harder than if there were no restriction at all, and that does make a difference. And buying alcohol for your 1-year-younger friend is one thing, but buying alcohol for a 15yo is quite another. When I was that age, few people regularly hung out with people that much younger.
Back at the time yes, it was uncommon to have a friends group with more than 1 or 2 years difference between the younger and the older, but today it don't seems to be so.
I agree that this type of social media ban shouldn’t be made at all, though. What I do want is filters that can be activated by parents that are relatively difficult to circumvent, but don’t require anyone to submit their ID data. You can still fine the parents if it becomes known, though obviously that’s less likely than if every single user had to submit their ID.
As I said, filters are alread really hard to make to work, having them also difficult to elude make them even harder. Not considering the fact that you need to create some sort of infrastructure to keep them updated, which make them even harder to implement.
they are useless today where you need to be 18 to buy alcohol.[citation needed]
Never seen the group of underage boys waiting outside the shop for the 18 old friend to buy beer (or any other liqueur) for everyone ?
It’s certainly possible to circumvent it, but where I live most people don’t become regular drinkers at 15. It makes it harder to access, and many people actually do want to follow the law. IMO a social media ban is going to work the same way - many will circumvent it, but many others won’t bother.
Neither where I live boys became drinkers at 15 (oh well, some do) but the point is that if a "filter" or ban where you need to be present and there is a person to check is easily circumvented, the classic example of the older friend who buy beers for everyone, I have no faith that a ban based on something virtual has any chance of success. True, it would be harder than the old "are you old enough to access the site" version, but you understimate 15 year old boys (and girls obviously). There are ways to make the ban work but I have the feeling that these solutions would be considered intrusive and against privacy.
For example, the social network can ask for the SSN (or equivalent) and check against the entity responsible to assign the number to check if is valid and of legal age and then keep the number to avoid to be used by someone else (like they keep the email).But a solution like this is too easy to abuse: the social network has a SSN that they know it is true and valid and the state know a certain person has an account on a certain social network, now imagine the state that ask also the nickname you used on the social network to validate your SSN...
You need to start somewhere.If it work, maybe the same solution will be adopted from other parts of the country.
Do you trust your government to handle your ID data safely and in a way that law enforcement etc. can’t access without proper cause? This is definitely going to get used to do police raids and years-long device seizures on people who call dick politicians dicks - the process is the punishment.
The government **already **handle your ID data.It has your document id number, SSN equivalent (in Italy Codice Fiscale), the number of your driver license, the number of your passport, know where you live, know where you work and know any other information about you that allow it to identify you, they issued most of them, they know them.
If you actually want to protect children, force operating system manufacturers or home internet hardware manufacturers to implement child filters that work reliably.
It was proven times and again that filters are useless.Man, they where useless back at the time where the filter at the newsstand was a person that could check you id before selling you pornographic journals and they are useless today where you need to be 18 to buy alcohol.The only real solution is to educate the children, which require educated parents.
The problem, and it seems you still do not understand it, is that these kind of ebike are more powerfull than vehicles for which you need a driver’s license. The simple question is: why I should need a driver’s license for a moped that (legally) cannot be faster than 45 Km/h and not for a fatbike that is faster (and often less secure) ?no i understand it completely, ive just read more than just this article on subjects surrounding this issue and similar ones than you have, and i have first hand experience in the subject. evidently.
Then there are only 2 solutions: you either change the traffic regulations or you enforce them. Amsterdam choose to enforce them.Everything else is just noise.
im not writing another wall of text just to have a mod who doesnt like my opinion remove it.
Maybe you should nave not tried to spin a decision about enforcing traffic rules as something about people's race.
just imagine being scared of a bicycle because an article told you to be…smh
The problem, and it seems you still do not understand it, is that these kind of ebike are more powerfull than vehicles for which you need a driver's license.The simple question is: why I should need a driver's license for a moped that (legally) cannot be faster than 45 Km/h and not for a fatbike that is faster (and often less secure) ?
I’d say 15 to 20 minutes.
Seems a little too much to me.
I would argue that higher education (and universities at the least) can be clustered.
And universities are already clustered (mostly), the problem for someone outside the big cities is the high school: there are many "types" of high schools and in small cities there is not enough students to have one of every type, so you need to move to another small town nearby. And even in big cities like Milan, there is not enough request to have every type of high school at a walkable distance from everyone.
In the end you would need a massive public transportation system (which is good to have anyway) but that must basically work on demand: as long as using a car to do few errands is going to take way less time because trains and buses have a timetable that make you wait 1 hour between them public transportation simply is not really usefull.
As a note tho: I am not saying that we can just plop this solution in place. It does require pretty intense city planning as well as time.
I don't really think you can plan a city this way. Sure, you can try to have a city where you make a car mostly useless for some of the day by day activities but you would not be able to make the car really useless in a city.
For example having all the types of school of higher grade than the elementary and middle school.
But I suppose we should define "walkable distance" before.
Only up to a point. Small cities have not the critical mass of inhabitants to make certain services logical or even sustainable.
Having everything you need daily at a walkable distance only works in big cities, in small towns it do not work.
sure is, but a human cyclist can ride up to 60kmph unassisted. yet no license for that.
Well, while it is true that you can reach this top velocity, it is not a cruising speed. There is a difference between been able to reach a speed and been able to maintain that speed.If you are able to maintain 60 km/h for an hour, you could just give a try to the hour record
recent immigrants are excluded from obtaining a drivers license until they pass a drivers test, or have one from a country with similar laws.
Being a recent immigrant has nothing to do with being excluded from obtaining a driver license until they pass a driver test, this is how it work for everyone: it work this way also for a a Dutch person born in Amsterdam: he has to attend driving school to get it. So where is exactly the discrimination ?
in the meantime, many refugees, asylum seekers, immigrants, etc are poor and need a way to get around and make money, without taking out thousands, to tens of thousands of dollars in debt, plus fees. so they resort to using ebikes, or regular bikes, public transit, uber, etc. to get around. ebikes are a great way for them to get work doing delivery service in well populated areas. and that has obviously lead to a lot of contention on that subject. ignoring that variable in a much larger equation will give skewed results. so dont ignore it.
While I agree that they need to move (like everyone else btw) I do not agree on the fact that they should break the law to do it.
Yeah, only difference is that the death wagon at 150 Km/h is not driven on the sidewalk and you need e license to drive it.and that still doesnt stop it from being the deadliest thing any human can get in or be around on a daily basis. stats do not lie about that in any sense.
I don't agree. While it is true that it can be dangerous, the death for car accident in Italy where a little more than 3000. For comparison in the first 7 months of 2025 there were a little less than 900 work related deaths. In 2024 there where a little more than 1000 work related death. So while I acknowledge that there are too many victims of car accident, I don't think it is the deadliest thing.
the rules in this case are banning a particular type of vehicle commonly driven in the area by immigrants doing delivery service or travelling for work, or just in general. and seeing as its amsterdam, a place that has been known to be racist and xenophobic due to decades of cannabis related tourism (amongst other reasons) gives cadence to the fact that recent fluctuations of people fleeing destablized countries arent assimilating the way they are wanted to by locals, and established businesses/corporations. this kind of event always leads to a slurry of new laws and regulations that will please the consistent local registered voter base. the local voter base primarily being white european people who have had a significant uptick in hate crimes and fascistic ideation as of late, all across europe. but also in amsterdam. which, fun fact, is where anne fuckin franks house is. so its not like its historically accurate to say amsterdam isnt susceptable to making policy changes, at least partly based on hate or profit.
So, still the question: why immigrant cannot follow the laws of the country hosting them ?I mean, if I would emigrate to Japan I would follow their laws and while I maybe are not able to integrate completely given the differences in culture probably I would be way more integrate that not even following their laws. I can maintain my traditions at home, I doubt that any Japanese would say something if I had my tipical Christmas lunch instead of their traditional lunch.
Same in Amsterdam (or many other place in EU), these immigrants are not integrated because they understand that they can do whatever they want and if someone ask (or force) them to follow the laws of the country immediatly people like you make an excuses about why they can not (or should not) follow them.
It would be better to let them to drive these fat ebikes or whatever they want but just make sure that every every traffic violation is punished (with a fine or whatever) ?
banning one model leads to another, and another, and another. a new law, a new regulation, a new business model, higher taxes, higher fees, bigger punishments, more turmoil, its always a slippery slope. and the immigrants historically speaking are a wonderful catalyst for making these changes, either directly, or indirectly. conciously or unconciously, most people just dont question it. pop pop knows best.
If you say so...
banning one bike just makes it easier for them to ban more and push the boot down just a little harder, squeezing more money out of all of us.
it also doesnt solve the problem and is a waste if tax dollars until you consider the legal leverage it gives the political class over the minorities that also drive these things.
Yeah, yeah, making laws just make it easier for them to make more laws and push the boot down just a little harder and squeezing more money out of all of us. Sound better this way ?
What if everyone just start to follow the actual laws ? Maybe new laws that ban something new would not be necessary, don't you think ?
You just need to build a public transpotation system that can render cars useless for every use (shopping, commute, free time activities and so on) and that is usable from evertwhere to everywhere, even outside big (and small) cities.
True, but it is not a ban of US social media that would solve the problems.
In most of the EU countries people started to vote for the right wings becasuse the left wings failed hard, and people choose the alternative.I mean, last week in Italy the left wings "justified" the fact that 3 people that attacked a policeman with a hammer during a demonstration are already free, they "justified" the fact that a man with a list of felony is still free om the streets and sucker punched a woman on the street. Do you really think that voters see this and think "Wow, these are the politicians I want to run my city/region/state" ?And it is not a problem of immigrant vs Italians, in the first case the 3 guys where italians, in the second it was an immigrant.