Apple doesn't have that capabilty though. There are countless ways to get copyrighted material on your phone that are perfectly legal. Apple would have to be able to decide if you're legally owning your files. With how the IP system works currently that's impossible. For CSAM this isn't a problem because we assume that there is no legitimate way to have CSAM files on your phone.
Or take a photo of CSAM on display on another device or printout using your iPhone camera, which is often accessible from the lock screen without a PIN.
The comment is neither dishonest nor misleading. It is a fact that many people living in dense areas live a normal live without owning a car. GP was just responding to the problem of transporting large objects without owning a car and correctly stating that there is some amount of people getting by without car in the Netherlands. The solution is of course to just rent a transportation car for a few hours when you need it.
I live in a high density area (Berlin) myself with 1.4 Million cars on 3.6 Million cars. Obviously living in Berlin without a car is possible without much hassle for lots of people. Claiming that doesn't mean that nobody in Berlin needs a car. But because most of the 3.6 Million Berliners manage to move and transport furniture sometimes, we can conclude that they definitely do not need it to transport their Ikea purchase.
The implication was that the Netherlands exemplified a country with a remarkably low number of cars per capita. The numbers do not support this assertion regardless of what GP might "feel".
It is true that most urban dwellers do not need a car. But that point can be made without trying to amplify it with false assertions.
It's the German state broadcasting agency producing content in many languages for Germans abroad and an international audience. For anti-propaganda reasons they are not allowed to broadcast in Germany. This is in contrast with the German public broadcasting agencies which have a compulsory fee, but are not directly paid by the state. DW have some really good and interesting reporting off the mainstream but should be consumed with care as they are effectively controlled by the German state. Recently they are set to become a sort of counter to Russia Today meant to counter fake news. A friend of mine works at DW and frequently rants about higher-ups revising or canceling reporting because it doesn't fit the desired angle.
> With cash, we don't know who is using the 100 dollar bill today
Some CBDCs like GNU Taler also have that property. Tokens are signed with blind signatures so the exchange doesn't know the identifier of the tokens you got, just how much of it gave you.
Taler is a pretty great system. It is anonymous for the payer, but doesn't facilitate money laundering because the receiver of the money can be identified. It's also fairly cheap to run. I hope it gets adopted as a digital currency.
In my puberty I had a strong feeling of rather being a girl and this caused significant mental anguish and some self harm. If had known as much about transgender people back then as I do know I would have likely transitioned then.
Today I'm pretty okay with being a man. I still sometimes have problems with it but not in the same order of magnitude.
From these personal experiences I think it is plausible that more people transition because more people are aware of the possibility and knowing other trans people in their age. I have no idea how big that group is however.
Though it may be an unanswerable question (and maybe too personal, please don't feel obligated to share), do you think you would have been better off transitioning?
The analogy with the useless tree breaks down because gemini still has to be useful to some people. I can understand the tree living as an end in itself, less so for a web protocol. Gemini has a mission and if it's usage is too restricted it will barely be a safe space for anybody because barely anybody will be using it.
It's a tradeoff and I can't judge if gemini got it right, but gemini obviously still wants to be useful in similar aspects in which it wants to be useless enough.
>Gemini has a mission and if it's usage is too restricted it will barely be a safe space for anybody because barely anybody will be using it.
I think that's the point. When you build a protocol so restrictive and ascetically minimalist that even HN and Lobste.rs, epicenters of the very sort of contrarian tech hipster anti-modernist elitism that brought it about mostly complain about it, it's clear that what you're really optimizing for isn't utility but ideological purity and cultural homogeneity.
Protocols can be built to reinforce the ideals of their creators, and thus attempt to create a culture around themselves, yes. For an example of this, see Urbit.
Gemini exists to satisfy political and cultural, not technical, needs. Most of what Gemini users have to say regarding their preference for it, and its benefits and its purpose are almost entirely about culture, not technology - the web is too complex, the web is too mainstream, too commercial, no longer a small "quirky" community, too full of the wrong people using it the wrong way.
We're here replying to an article whose entire thesis is that Gemini's technical shortcomings, it's "uselessness," is a killer feature for promoting a specific kind of culture, for preventing certain forms of expression and encouraging others, inviting certain kinds of people in, and keeping other kinds of people out. That it will never be extended is a decision based on enforcing culture, in the belief that any extra complexity, regardless of its utility, risks the protocol being used in ways that undermine its ideological basis.
At least in the German ruling of the constitutional court they could refere to Article 20a of the German constitution
Art20a, Roughly translated:
The state, in responsibility for future generations, protects the natural means of subsistence and the Animals in the constitutional order by use of legislative, excecutive and judiciary measures.
Of course this doesn't say verbatim to protect the climate but I think this is enough legislative basis to rule dangerous negligence on the matter of climate change unconstitutional.
This is made me think about the Black Mirror Episode 'Fifteen Million Merits', where the protagonist struggles hard to get into a casting show out of hate. After he successfully got in and held an angry rant holding a glass shard against the host's throat his 'performance' turned out to be so popular that they made a weekly show out of it.
For anyone who hasn't seen it, damn is that episode a good ~hour of scifi. Black Mirror has some great stuff, if you don't mind a lot of it being _dark_ as hell.
