Zurrrrr

What MS could do, and would make sense, is to just withdraw from the UK Market.

I know they won't actually do that, but it would seem they would make more money in the US, Canada, EU and other countries that approve the deal, than they would if they ignore the deal and stay in the UK.

Besides which, the UK would relent and ask them to come back anyway.

Supposedly it can tell 'dangerous' liquids apart from things like drinks and shampoos.

The thing is, those claims about MacOS have been true for some time, while Windows becoming this bad is a relatively recent thing. 10 was the start, and 11 was a huge escalation.

Thank you. I'm going to add that book to my list, it sounds interesting.

The MacOS UI is one of the better desktop environments I’ve encountered

See that's just hard for me to understand. At every point it seems to get in the way. Someone else in this thread made a list of the UI behaviors that they thought were odd, e.g. pressing enter on a file results in a prompt to rename it.

I think it's hard to measure and compare UI stuff though, because we become so biased by what we're used and what we find easiest or most comfortable to use.

It still makes you racist.

No it doesn't. It just makes you incredibly insecure.

It's not more complicated than that.

Are you a shrink now?

No, and I don't need to be. It's obvious. As is the way you are distorting everything else in your reply here.

Besides, the irony and hypocrisy of you saying things like

I just think your worldview is informed by a hyperbolic narrative than actual facts.

When you asked if I was a shrink for simply observing how (very obviously) your comments were coming from an emotional rather than a rational place.

It's clear you are not engaging in good faith but just being defensive, and I have no time for such one-sided discussions. In fact, all of your replies seem downright petty, like you're throwing rocks at me because you don't like what I said, rather than you're interested in having a civil debate.

I'm sure you'll reply again, however I have no interest in replying further, because it clearly isn't a good faith discussion interested in objective facts and truths - anything critical of India is just going to be dismissed, denied or whataboutismed - that's if my reply isn't just mass flagged out of spite to start with.

Best of luck to you.

Every post you've made here is so clealry stemming from emotion and the need to be defensive. Maybe put that aside and actually deal with facts and figures, and not perceived slights.

People refuted your assertion with facts and figures.

No, they didn't. And I could provide a lot more links and provide a much mroe compelling argument, but despite your beliefs, I'm not trying to make India look bad and have nothing against India. Besides, my posts would just get mass downvoted no matter their credibility.

So, you are not going to acknowledge your incorrect assumptions?

I made none, rather it's you and others making incorrect assumptions and jumpting to be defensive.

Your statement was not even remotely neutral. Please point out these untruths.

And why would I bother to engage you in actual debate when you're being so clearly biased and emotional thorughout the thread?

So, let's give up the petty tribalism, shut down all the other space programs and redirect all that funding to ISRO.

I don't really agree with that, but I am definitely in support or a global combined space program instead of wasted resources.

And I would have appreciated an informed and well thought out comment instead of a puerile low effort one. Yet here we are.

That's ironic, given the low quality and guidelines violating nature of your posts. My initial comment could have led to productive discussion, but hurt feelings prevented that.

You say Indians are inefficient and not intelligent enough to have their own problems solved.

No, I never said that. I didn't even imply it. You just decided to 'hear' that and then strike back.

It's so incredibly ironic that you are accusing me of having a closed mind in this thread.

I think you replied to the wrong comment. I specifically referenced the rape endemic, and I said the way it is being handled is deplorable and woefully inadequate. And it is.

Honestly, your comment makes me wonder if there is any kind of site or project keeping track of that (because there should be), because I saw a headline recently but can't remember any specifics.

Searching 'book banning' on news.google.com still returns a lot of results with towns still doing it.

I think what I was actually thinking of though, was I think Mississippi (I think) deciding to defund all libraries in retaliation for the library suing over book bans.

100% agree.

And then you have those with higher education and critical thinking capabilities who wouldn't ever join the military...

That aside, these stats are not surprising. Anyone from outside the US knows just how bad the education system is within. With red states outright banning books and knowledge, that number may just continue to climb.

Canada will ban Americans for life who've driven drunk in America but never drank a drop anywhere in Canada. If you try to sneak or lie your way in, they'll arrest you.

That's not a bad analogy, except many countries won't let you in if you have a felony on your record. That isn't that unusual.

Singapore is going to arrest people for breaking no rule in their home country, and not for breaking any rules within the country, but simply for showing up at the door because you smoked weed before the 21 hour flight?

I mean, you're right I won't go because I think it's a crappy country, but that doesn't mean I still can't disprove I want to work towards a world where no country has shitty laws like that..

Deloitte has a huge reputation to maintain and wouldn't be putting out false information.

Besides, they are not saying anything that any other reputable source isn't also saying.

Who are you to dictate what laws they set on their own soil?

I'm not dictating, I'm disaproving.

Sovereign nations can indeed have whatever laws they want, and I don't have to go there but I can continue to speak out against bad and unjust laws as I see it.

I find your stance hyperbolic considering lots of countries still criminalize suicide.

If that's true, that's ignorance on my part.

I find your reasoning bizarre.

I can concede that maybe I have not expressed myself well or articulated my points clearly. Allow me to try and clarify.

GDPR is unique, because it exerts extraterritorial jurisdiction over servers whenever EU citizens are affected.

It's not simply the extraterritorial jurisdiction, it's that combined with how far-reaching and broad the GDPR is. The other examples people have given were either a seizure after an act was committed via a court order, or far more narrow in scope.

However, you won't relent

Regarding COPPA, I provided references showing that a) the legislation itself does not assert extraterritorial jurisdiction in the way the GDPR does, b) that the wiki claims the FTC asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction but I can find no actual link to the FTC asserting that, and c) that legal scholars and the legal community seems to be of the opinion that COPPA is only applies domestically.

Why should I relent when those points show that COPPA is indeed quite different from GDPR? What's the flaw in my reasoning here?

But you never ask yourself WHY ByteDance has a US presence in the first place? We could ask similar questions: Why does Facebook have a EU presence (on Ireland), why does Google?

But that's the point! The US sued someone via COPPA when they had a US presence, and it was in a US court. There was nothing extraterritorial about it!

GDPR is saying they could take action against one lone Chinese person operating a small business from home within China, someone who has never even left China, just because they collected data on someone in France.

That's frankly ridiculous, and I maintain, unprecedented.

I don't think I could ever switch to Mac. I'm not a fan of the price markup, don't want to support a company that is so anti-right to repair and so pro lock-in, and aside from all of that their UI always feels like it gets in the way more than it enables me to work.

I'll take an equivalent thinbook at a third of the price and put any number of stable and lightweight DEs on it instead.

That or free himself from the shackles of religion...

I mean, drugs would be a problem in both the sending and receiving country, often for both sender and receiver if caught.

This is more like me deciding to try and sue people in other countries because they said something I didn't like on the internet.

Singaporean law forbids their citizens and residents from using drugs in other countries.

The problem is with that law being applied to non-residents. If Singapore wants to police it's citizens lik that, it's fine.

But to arrest a Canadian because they smoked weed a couple of days before arriving at Singpore customs, where it's legal in Montreal where they were?

With that I agree, but I think a better word to describe Singapore is 'authoritarian.'

Another user pointed that out and I agree entirely. I exaggerated/resorted to hyperbole more than intended.

You're right, I used the wrong term. I'd say Singapore is still authoritarian in a vacuum though, western democracies aside.

That's fine, I respect you ending the discussion if you don't feel headway can be reached.

I will say I feel you are missing my point, and that you are claiming things like COPPA are equivalent because you are at a higher level of abstraction. When you get more specific, you will see that I am correct.

Cheers.

I mean specifically in the way GDPR does it.

GDPR asserts that anyone anywhere in the world must adhere to the GDPR if any EU citizens supply data to them. I'm not aware of any remotely similar laws in commerce or communications in any other country.

I'm not trolling. Just because it might be a very pleasant place to live doesn't mean it isn't also totalitarian.

They charge people coming into their country if they have weed in their system (or their law allows them to and it seems they enforce it enough that countries warn their citizens), breaking no law in their country, and quite likely adhering to the law in their country of origin.

They make suicide illegal and PUNISH peoples attempts at it.

You don't think those two points alone (without even bothing to list additional obscene laws) are INSANE? Do you really want to defend them?

Here's an example of that not being true:

That's not an example at all. I'm talking specifics here. The GDPR is the first law of it's kind that just outright asserts jurisdiction anywhere, as long as the origin took some data from an EU citizen. That is absolutely unprecedented. I'm not aware of any remotely similar law in commerce or communications in any other country.

Megaupload is about an international seizure of a specific company, not farreaching broad open-ended legislation.

COPPA only applies domestically, and is significantly more narrow in scope. I know wiki says the FTC asserts it has international reach, but the actual text of the legislation (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-C...) says no such thing, and the wiki says that opinion isn't taken seriously.

Also, in the case of Bytedance, they have a US presence which is why they were able to be sued in a US court: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.37...

So yeah, I would still say it's unprecedented, I really can't see how there is anything similar.

No worries at all, I don't take that personally, but may I ask what facts you think I am ignoring?

The facts are as follows:

1. GDPR asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction. This is clearly documented and is within the text of the act itself.

2. This is unprecedented. There is no other law from any (lets say first world) country that asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction to anywhere even close to the GDPR.

I've provided links for both of these claims.

jacquesm is arguing against both of those facts, claiming they are not in fact true, and linking to US laws trying to state that are the same thing, when they are not even close.

It's enforcing rules on data sent to/from people in the EU and the servers (not just servers ofc), i.e. on companies offering their services to people in the EU.

Quoting from an earlier link I posted:

"Let’s say for example that you are a Chinese web shop with a website that is available in German, French and English as well. You also process multiple orders a day from individuals within the EU and ship your products to them. This will make you fall in the scope of the GDPR, even though you have no establishment in the EU and are not performing any data processing activities within the EU."

The point is that that Chinese web shop can provide services to EU citizens, and the EU has no way of enforcing any aspect of the GDPR on that Chinese webs hop, and I'm pretty sure China would be the first to tell you the GDPR does not apply within its borders.

If the companies don't wish to follow the laws of a specific country (or in this case, all EU countries), they're welcome to not provide services to those users.

In this case, the company could be following the laws in their home country, and be in violation of the GDPR just because an EU citizen bought something from them.

In this case, the EU is responsible for blocking the website, rather than the website needing to be in compliance with the GDPR.

I think the beaurocrats in the EU don't even know what they are doing with most of the policies or "fines" they try to impose.

I think it's like I said, it's a lot of "feel good" laws.

It will drive Europe to a sort of digital isolationism where offshore companies will either a) dismiss and continue b) cease operations there.

I think it's more likely the US adopts a softer version of the GDPR, and it will be the EU and the US and the Commonwealth countries vs pretty much other more restricted Internet 'islands'.

I really hope we have a working decentralized alternative before that happens. It's something I want to start contributing to later this year, because I think it really needs to be a priority.

Then maybe you should consult the guidelines.

And if someone is continuing to ignore facts and claim clearly false things as you were, what is the polite way to point that out?

Nothing is more freeing than having Nanny making all your decisions for you.