Not a doctor here, but fulminant meningitis can kill a person in about 24/48 hours even if treated, for example.
That is true in US. In EU litigations cost are way lower and a single person could sue, win and not be financially broken.
Problem is only that in any case what you pay for a lawyer is more than you win, so it make no sense to sue in any case.
The first rule of encryption is that the password need to be secret, not the algorithm. (not mine, but I cannot readily find the source, sorry :-( )
A truly good encryption algorithm is safe even if I give you the source code for it but not the password I used to encrypt the data.
Ukraine is fighting to survive (and they know it) and Ukranian partners have 2 different reasons: the US to test weapon systems against what was supposed to be the 2th best army in the world (and to renovate its arsenal), EU because they are starting to understand that Putin is more and more looking like Hitler in the 1930's, even if the situation is completely different and probably history cannot be repeated the same way.
This leave Russia (and Putin himself), which seems to have only to lose in all of this: if they retreat, Putin is doomed (the oligarchs would not be happy, to say the least), if they win they still lose: they will end with an ungovernable country that need to be rebuild, task for which they have not the necessary resources, and NATO even bigger since probably a lot of neighboring states would ask to enter NATO.
So in the end my truly cinical opinion is that this war will last until Putin will be "removed" from his position, be by natural causes, oligarchs "causes" or some kind of revolution.
But we have zero reason to believe he wants to do so,
Well, the present events seem to refute what you are saying.
It’s not the same situation. Obviously. Russia wants one small region that they lost custody of in their divorce.
It is the exact same situation. That the region is small or big is irrelevant.
Germany wanted all of Poland, Belgium, and Netherlands. And it’s certainly not as if the reason WW2 happened was that Poland surrendered eventually. The sum total of similarities between the two scenarios is: both countries tried to take land.
It’s actually a better argument to say that taking Poland and Belgium by force allowed Germany to accelerate their war machine dramatically compared to their future opponents, and had they been surrendered to, might not have been able to pull off the massively complicated military feats that were 100% required to be done in the first few months of the war if they wanted to even have a chance to win it.
Germany took Poland and Belgium when the German's army was ready while their opponents were not that ready exactly because this was the entire plan of Hitler.
Hitler always counted on the fact that the rest of Europe wanted peace and that they were willing to do anything to preserve it, even to believe to all the false promises Hitler did.
You really need to study some history.
If you’re trying to stop a steamroller, your best possible course of action is to not let it get started. And there is no steam roller required vs a surrender.
True. In this case it was when Putin invaded Crimea, now the steamroller is already going and it would not be a surrender to stop it.
Why not blame the companies ? After all they are the ones that are doing it, not the boomer politicians.
And in the long term they are the ones that risk to be "punished", just imagine people getting tired of this shit and starting to block them at a firewall level...
Why not ? Even Linux started as a personal fun project. Let's see where it will go
Replying to you, but it is valid also for @porksoda@lemmy.world.
If you ask for permission to do certain works in your house, you present the project to your city council, or the required office, and if after a given time (depending on what what you want to do) they don't object then you have the permission. Before the introduction of the silent consent, you have no idea about how many time you need to wait before you get an answer and it was prone to corruption while now the "yes" is the default unless there are real problems. It is not a perfect solution, but it is way better than before.
Basically all the interactions with the authorities are on a silent consent base when the authority in question does not need to produce something to give back.
All the minor changes to the contract with banks, utility companies and so on: they propose the new terms and if you don't accept in a given time from the moment you read it you accept it. By law in the event I refuse the new terms, I don't end with the old ones but the contract end and in the case it has penalties for early terminations, these are nullified if the penalties are applied to the other side.
On the other hand, this way a company has a certain deadline after which the new terms come into effect and as a side bonus the fact that it has to handle only the exceptions (who don't accept) and not all the ones that are ok.
Wedding publications, since we have not the whole "if you disagree to this marriage talk now or shut up forever" part of the ceremony, to be sure that there is no hidden problems we put an announce in a designated public place (usually a notice board at the town hall and/or your church) for a given period of time, usually 2 or 3 weeks, and then if nobody object you can marry.
I agree that this is probably something old that were done back at the time but it work on the same principle. Of course now there are other ways to know if someone is already married (on the civil side) or is divorced (on the religious side) or there are some hindrances.
And before someone ask, we also have examples where this approach were shoot down: the last of these is when a big back decide to move part of their clients to a virtual back (a different branch of itself) and they were stopped on the basis that this change it too radical to be done this way (even if the notice was about 6 months). Other cases hit utilities companies which in some cases where forced by a judge to pay compensation to the customers because what they done was basically illegal and the silent consent where then void.
You can. After all the GDPR does not forbid you to not accept to talk to someone.
A penalty should be something you want to avoid. A 25 million (occasional) fine for Amazon is like asking me to pay a .25 (occasional) fine for, say, no parking. It has no deterrence.
On the other hand, a percentual on the profits is a lot more deterrent, expecially for a company. Maybe 25% is too much, I agree, but let's say a 2-5% of the profits is not that bad.
Note that a fine that is a percentual of your profits (or income) is far more balanced because it hurts the small and the big company the same way.
gian
joined 1 year ago
Russia already lost all its credibility, after they sign the Bubapest memorandum, they breach it and annexed Crimea. Then tried to annex the rest of Ukraine (or to put one of its puppet) some years later. At this point everything Russia sign has less value than the paper used to write it.
You are right, nobody want WW3 but it is not that because of this then Putin (or everyone else for that matter) could do whatever he want.