It seems like Teslas get way less range when it’s cold, especially the ones without heat pumps. This is no surprise whatsoever but it’s not well covered by EPA range estimates because combustion engines get free heat. So it’s not something people are used to thinking about.
Seems like where Tesla f’d up is by making a team to lie about it instead of just telling people, “yeah that’s what happens.” As usual it’s the cover-up that worse than the crime. Tesla will probably win the case but will look stupid. Should have just been honest about it.
I’m not fully sure about the logic and hinted conclusions here. The internet itself is a network with major CSAM problems (so maybe we shouldn’t use it?).
Let’s hope they get fined and it sets a precedent. That crap of" pay or consent" it’s becoming the norm in every site I visit. That’s not a free choice. I’m forced to consent if I don’t want to pay, so it should be a flawed consent.
European law generally isn’t precedent-based, but the commission already put out a statement saying that “pay-or-okay” models are not GDPR compliant. edpb.europa.eu/…/edpb_opinion_202408_consentorpay…
I disagree, no one is by law obligated to provide free services for you. Either pay or have ads is fine by me.
And DMA does not care about your local newspaper site, unless they’re so big that they’re a gatekeeper. Ruling based on DMA does not affect anyone but the gatekeepers.
It’s not about having free services but flawed consent. I can’t give you my consent if it’s either pay or accept tracking tracking. That’s not a free consent, and that’s what’s being ruled here. Give me a paywall, I’m fine with it. But don’t you go saying you’re giving me a free choice when it’s either pay or screw your privacy. That’s not consent, that’s extortion.
That’s a choice, my choice is to back away or use an anonymous window and accept the tracking if I really want to see the content.
It’s just another paywall, it just gives you the option of paying with your data. It’s your choice what’s more valuable.
But I get it, people want choices shoved down their throats, they don’t want to actually choose. That’s why paywall is fine, but paywall with free-with-tracking-option is the big bad. No one forces you to give your consent, give it or don’t, it’s up to you.
You don’t want the choice to consent, you want to be angry at someone about something.
You don’t get it. The problem is that the consent is not free. I can’t give my consent to be tracked if the alternative is to pay a fee. It’s as simple as that. The consent must be given without flaws, I can’t be forced to accept the tracking, because then it’s not a consent. You should stop shilling for corpos.
You’re not forced. And I’m not shilling anyone, for all I care Meta can collapse, I don’t use any of their products because of their tracking. See, I made my choice, you want to push your choice onto others, big difference.
Pay or have ads is fine by the EU’s DMA law too. What isn’t fine is the collection of user data without consent. Facebook can show all the ads they want, but if they collect user data to target those ads they need consent.
Think about radio or TV advertising - those aren’t targeted at specific people, but rather they’re targeted based on what channel, time of day and TV shows that they’re around. Meta can do the same stuff, but they just don’t want to give up that lucrative user data.
I obviously meant ads that track you, didn’t know I have to spell it out. So to clarify, I was talking about the tracking kind of ads which need user consent. My point was that giving consent or paying is fine in my book, because you have a choice and no one is entitled to a free service. And that even if DMA decides it’s not, it doesn’t concern anyone but a few select companies.
To be fair, I’m like 80% sure it was perfectly clear in the original comment as well.
I was making the point that ad-supported services have been financially viable for centuries without needing to invade personal privacy, and that governments have been regulating industries for even longer - and at this point, your personal choice doesn’t really matter. You might be perfectly happy to eat food cooked in an unhygienic kitchen, for example, but enough people have been harmed in the past for food hygiene regulations to be commonplace worldwide.
For anyone who hasn’t checked their Spotify subscription for a while, I recently discovered a new basic tier created underneath the premium one that is a little cheaper simply by not including the ‘free’ 15 hours of audiobooks. I’ve never used it and don’t intend to. YMMV.
Yeah. I’m not buying for a minute that anything was “discovered”, other than that they didn’t pay their protection bill. Meta/Facebook seems to have tolerated worse and more obvious abuses for decades.
There is a neofetch alternative that specializes in pride flags. Someone submitted a PR to add the “straight pride” flag, and it was rejected on the basis that it wasn’t a “marginalized community”.
I think it’s okay for a queer app to focus on queer shit and not associate with a label which is overwhelmingly used to virtue signal being a bigot, that’s not really an attack on equality.
I would also reject such a pull request. Straight folks aren’t systematically shamed for being straight. They don’t need pride to counter nonexistent shame.
It’s worth noting that this money funneling operation doesn’t look to be illegal, as research intended for publication doesn’t fall under the purview of the ban. Huawei operates similar competitions in other parts of the world, though openly. People who participated in the US-based research competition didn’t even know that Huawei was involved, believing the money to come from Optica. The competition awards $1 million per year and Optica didn’t give any indication that Huawei was supplying the cash.
I’ve started cracking down on Disney+, and I’m getting flack for it. It’s all “why did you dropkick our TV”, “how did you get in here”, “we’re calling the police” bla bla bla bla. I’m just trying to help! Geez.
Against all odds? This is a game that’s been going on for year, hacker vs Corp, and the hacker always wins. Same shit as anticheat in games, it’s a constant arms race but the hacker is nearly always a step ahead.
Well, you see this uses up a far larger chunk of the pointlessly huge police budget. I’m sure they’ll also figure out a way for it to kill people soon.
engadget.com
Top