TWeaK

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago (4 children)

"Advancements in technology" that the rest of the world has been using for 2-3 decades if not longer.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Twitter was wrecked with the purchase, it's been on borrowed time since. The business is now worth less than the $13bn loan it took out to buy itself on Musk's behalf. It was a leveraged buyout, just like every business that goes under after "being saddled with debt".

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

SpaceX would probably be more profitable if they didn't have to spend so much time and resources on preventing Musk from interfering with things.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Don't recommend Brave either lol.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I remember it also let you spoof your user agent, and had a built in email client. It was just generally feature rich.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

You don't have to start a war against China to defend the people of Hong Kong and openly help evacuate them against an oppressive invasive force. Let China be the one to take aggressive action.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What do you think about my suggestion of holding the bill payer liable? Obviously this wouldn't help with pay phones, but any service where someone pays through a traceable means could work. Do you think that would help reduce the number of fraudulent calls?

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Absolutely, but proving all of that is a tall order. Turning it into a civil offense where the bill payer is automatically liable sets a much lower bar, where successful prosecution is far more likely.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

They won't do that because it all started with Brexit limiting access to chemicals used to treat water.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago (10 children)

They also need to address the false calls. I think the phone bill payer should automatically be liable for the deployment costs of a false call, unless they point the finger at the person who actually made the call. That wouldn't quite be justice, as it wouldn't necessarily make them liable for the false report, but it would go a long way to stopping them.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

The lawsuit wasn't coming because they were in a strong grey area with one physical copy per digital. By offering unlimited copies they directly invited a lawsuit.

And then their legal defense had absolutely no competency behind it. They didn't come with any legal principles, they basically just said "we shouldn't be punished because we're nice", and then they tried the same style of argument during appeal, basically throwing money away on legal expenses. All the while they were campaigning for donations - the people that supported them were paying the lawyers, not for the IA's regular activities.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 45 points 1 year ago (23 children)

Yes but when they SWAT you and one of your family members dies you lose even harder.

view more: ‹ prev next ›