I agree that exceptions should be made for open-source.

The exceptions shouldn’t be made for “open source” (which would require a legal definition of that), but for operating systems that aren’t preinstalled on devices.

I haven’t read the exact wording of this bill yet, but if it includes all operating systems, then that would seem to prohibit distributing vintage operating systems from before anyone had this idea.

I continue to believe that in the US, the First Amendment prohibits any level of government from requiring operating systems in general to implement any features whatsoever. Distribution of software, including operating systems, in source or compiled form, is covered under “the freedom of speech”.

If the government thinks this is just product regulation, then fine, but then the law should be limited to operating systems preinstalled on devices.

and given that any website that allows users to post anything could at any moment have any of those things on it…

I think “allen Ernstes” is more accurately translated “in all seriousness”, not “actually”; so: “the moderator here, in all seriousness, deleted…”.

Yes, this is true (although the name change happened years before the major version was no longer 10) and doesn’t contradict anything I wrote. But the first version of Mac OS X was an entirely new OS technologically unrelated to Mac OS 9; not the case for later version jumps.

True, that usually costs money though, while Tor is free.

In general no, at least according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS#macOS the name change happened several years before the architecture change. But I don’t know what the distinction is on that graph; it’s possible it just depends on how the OS is called in the user agent string?

The OS was renamed at some point; the first versions of the Unix/NEXTstep-based OS made by Apple were named Mac OS X, then at some point they switched to “OS X” (which hardly anyone ever actually said), then at some point to “macOS”. So it’s somewhat silly that they are separate lines and I don’t know what the difference is on that graph.

Wenn du uns sagst, welchen Editor du verwendest, können wir dir evtl. besser helfen. Es sollte aber jeder Editor, mit dem du solche Daten bearbeiten kannst, irgendwie eine Funktion “split way”/“Weg auftrennen” (evtl. “Weg teilen”) haben; normalerweise muss man gleichzeitig den Weg auswählen und einen Knoten, an dem man ihn auftrennen will, und dann diese Funktion verwenden.

except that laws about social media usually target any online service regardless of technology

I don’t see Tor solving the problem of I.D. verification on social media, for example.

It does by disguising the location you’re accessing the website from, which may or may not have such laws.

Wie meinst du Teilabschnitt? Du kannst und sollst auf jedem Weg (way) eigene Tags setzen. Wenn die Straße noch nicht da in getrennte Wege geteilt ist, wo sich die Begrenzung ändert, musst du das eben zuerst machen.

I was wondering how much closer it can get than it is now… then I noticed the date.

not wrong though, we are lucky that the apparent sizes of the moon and sun are as close as they are on Earth :D

In principle yes, because the government has the authority to legally punish people (with fines, imprisonment, even death), private companies do not…

But your specific example with Palantir is a bit weird because Palantir, as I understand it, is mainly in the business of data analysis for governments, so that is an example of government spying, not corporate spying…

Followup question: Is there an overview of which VPNs can be used with third party (FOSS) clients and which not? I don’t currently use a VPN except a corporate VPN, but may change that in the future.

By that logic they would have to ban all public domain code.

It’s also not always true. Unmodified AI output can’t be copyrighted, but if AI was only used as a tool and there is still significant human input, e.g. because the AI output needed some manual editing afterwards, it is copyrighted.

That’s the one, thanks. I thought this happened much earlier than 2013 for some reason.

Wasn’t there a long time ago a genuine bug report in Mozilla’s bug tracker reporting that the source code was publicly available and this was insecure? I can’t quickly find it because I can’t think of good search terms…

I think that has happened before, though?