gian

Ever tried to read the Apple privacy policy ?

You need something to do while you are charging the batteries… ;-P

Apple doesn’t and they take their security seriously. Feds are always crying about how hard it is to break into iphones, telcos are complaining how apple protects it’s users (because telcos have an interest in monetizing those apple users), and the payouts for finding security vulnerabilities for apple products are very high.

This only means that Apple don’t allow anyone else to do it, not that Apple itself does not do it.

Oh well… if you have kids in the back seats and a long travel it would not seems too insane

Every brand isn’t evangelized in the same way the cult of Elon pushed their golden goose.

Maybe, but ask an Alfa Romeo fans about the brand… they are way worse than the Tesla fans… 😉

They’re run of the mill or worse than industry averages.

Look, I can tell way worse things about Renault if I look at how my car came out, so ? And I would concede that Tesla is pretty new to mass producted cars. During the years I found many quality problems also with brand that are even more evangelized and have a way longer history.

Couple this with the ridiculous price point on the vehicles and you have apple cars so to that point I can understand the delusional obsession with the brand and supporting it

In Italy, a couple of models (Y and 3) are pretty much aligned with other brand’s cars of the same category, so they don’t seems to be that expensive. Or the other brands are too expensive.

Which is basically true for every brand, not only Tesla.

You can’t have both privacy and protection from illegal media and communication.

as most of these guys getting arrested are around the age and are registered pedo

I think Australia has also another problem: they are registered pedo, so I suppose they are guilty of at least a past offense, why on earth should they be able to be outside a jail ?

Given that who is driving a 20 year old car (but car’s age does not really matter) now spend much more than 100 € a month for the fuel, it does not seems to be that expensive.

And anyway 20k € for a car are not that much these days if you want to buy a brand new car. I get that many people could not even afford that much, but it is not that nowadays an used car is much less expensive, if you want a decent one.

A possibility is that this way the manufacturer is sure to get the batter yback at any time, which means that probably once it the battery is under a certain max charge capacity. As far as I remember, Renault is/was doing something like this with the Zoe batteries: once they are no more good to be used for a car, they were refitted for home usage with solar panels.

But I get your point.

True, but that don’t seems to be a bad idea after all: it make the car less expensive when you buy it so maybe more people could afford one and currently for that montly price you will not even do one full tank of fuel here.

You know who will block that it will pass: Those fringe authoritarian states.

It is a possibility, but I am not sure about it.

It can not be solved. It is actually like asking them “hey, you cool with losing your veto power that you abused in the last decade because you are a russian puppet?”. Orban will never put a knife in his own back by giving up the crippling power he has over the EU. It is all he has.

“Hey, you cool losing 5 billion Euros from EU ? If not please approve the reform”, that is how it will be sold to them. And they know that they cannot refuse the money and I am sure enough that they will think that they can use the new voting system to their favour.

The problem with the vetoes could be solved if the proposed reform (to abolish the unanimous requirement) pass.

A possible answer is because the creators that have their own sponsors in their videos want the view even if you don’t see the Google ads, so Google on one hand want you to watch their ads while on the other hand cannot afford to really lose you since that would reflects on the creators and then if a creator leave for another platform (a big if, I agree) Google lose all the traffic generated by said creator, both who use an adblocker and who don’t use an adblocker.

Foreword: I had my ideas about all this (and I will keep them for myself) and while I not completly agree with you, it’s fine we had different opinions, I have no desire to make you change yours.

But I want to ask something, you say :

And of course Israel should negotiate with the Palestinians even if the democratically elected negotiators are terrorists. Israel’s first parliaments were full of former terrorists. There is no better way to turn terrorists into ex-terrorists than to negotiate with them.

I fail to understand how Israel could negotiate with the Palestinian when the elected Palestinian negotiators are terrorists that have written in their constitution (the Hamas Charter) that they need to destroy Israel (or zionist states in the new revision).

I mean, we could negotiate but we should both do it with good faith, if one of us has as objective to destroy the other, how we could negotiate and be sure the result will be respected by both sides ?

Replying to you, but it is valid also for @porksoda@lemmy.world.

If you ask for permission to do certain works in your house, you present the project to your city council, or the required office, and if after a given time (depending on what what you want to do) they don’t object then you have the permission. Before the introduction of the silent consent, you have no idea about how many time you need to wait before you get an answer and it was prone to corruption while now the “yes” is the default unless there are real problems. It is not a perfect solution, but it is way better than before.
Basically all the interactions with the authorities are on a silent consent base when the authority in question does not need to produce something to give back.

All the minor changes to the contract with banks, utility companies and so on: they propose the new terms and if you don’t accept in a given time from the moment you read it you accept it. By law in the event I refuse the new terms, I don’t end with the old ones but the contract end and in the case it has penalties for early terminations, these are nullified if the penalties are applied to the other side.
On the other hand, this way a company has a certain deadline after which the new terms come into effect and as a side bonus the fact that it has to handle only the exceptions (who don’t accept) and not all the ones that are ok.

Wedding publications, since we have not the whole “if you disagree to this marriage talk now or shut up forever” part of the ceremony, to be sure that there is no hidden problems we put an announce in a designated public place (usually a notice board at the town hall and/or your church) for a given period of time, usually 2 or 3 weeks, and then if nobody object you can marry.
I agree that this is probably something old that were done back at the time but it work on the same principle. Of course now there are other ways to know if someone is already married (on the civil side) or is divorced (on the religious side) or there are some hindrances.

And before someone ask, we also have examples where this approach were shoot down: the last of these is when a big back decide to move part of their clients to a virtual back (a different branch of itself) and they were stopped on the basis that this change it too radical to be done this way (even if the notice was about 6 months). Other cases hit utilities companies which in some cases where forced by a judge to pay compensation to the customers because what they done was basically illegal and the silent consent where then void.

Nope. The silent consent concept is a nice thing, it solve a lof of problems both for companies and private citizens. I could offer plenty of examples of the correct use of the concept that solve problems.

23andMe is just doing a big dick move trying to avoid to be sued for the leak.

The default is very obviously “no”.

Fine by me, I am not arguing that the default must be “yes”, but that you need a default.

If someone does not agree to the new terms, they did not agree to the new terms.

True. Problem is that from a company point of view, it is better to handle the (supposed) few exceptions that the (supposed) overwhelming normality, that why this questions are posed this way: you simply pose the question in a way that you minimize your work.

I can’t send you a new set of terms for reading my comments and just assume you forfeit your firstborn child to me if you don’t answer within 10 minutes.

A little excessive as example, but on the other hand I can argue that if you not put a time limit on these type of changes or decisions, I can simply say today that your 10 years old wedding is invalid because I have some reason to challenge your 10 years old marriage publications. (To explain, in Italy if you want to marry you need to put an announce, usually for a couple of weeks, on a public space, normally the town hall building, to let people who has some valid reasons to challenge it)

Also, normally in Italy a change in the agreed terms has only two options: you accept the new terms (even by silent consent) or the agreement is no more valid and it is dissolved without any penalties if present, so what 23andMe is trying to do is formally correct. But a big dick move.

Then they are still subject to the terms they actively agreed to… It’s not like there’s no agreement if you don’t get a reply… There was an agreement before you asked for new terms, there’s an agreement still.

True, but somehow you need a way to know who accept the new terms and who don’t. And you need to know the point in time from which you can start to enforce the new terms. As @bob_lemon said, it could be that the default is a “no” but you need to give a time limit.
Where I live the concept of “silent consent” is used in many other occasions and does not seems to be a problem.

We need laws addressing shit like “if you don’t say no in 30 days, we’ll take it as a yes”…

If someone do not answer, then what ? Like it could be wrong to assume a “yes” it could be wrong to assume a “no”. The assumption is that those that had something against, which they hope will be the minority, will answer while the others don’t care.