kirklennon

joined 2 years ago
[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Intuit divested the tax product in that sale, which was bought by Block (FKA Square) and is part of their Cash App brand. So it’s still around and still not Intuit.

[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

Because we have an elected government. If the government causes somebody a loss, voters, and by extension their representatives, and by extension, the government itself, wants to make them whole. Without allowing lawsuits, the only option is passing individual laws for each possible claim, and also creating a way to adjudicate those claims. We already have courts to handle the exact same kinds of issues between private parties. Congress decided to let it apply to the government too, when appropriate.

[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The government has sovereign immunity and can be sued only when it allows itself to be sued, such as under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Unless the court can forcibly remove the funds from their accounts

Yes, the courts can and absolutely will, though not in this case, because he's going to cough up the cash quickly (well as quickly as he can sell some stuff because there's no way he has that much in liquid assets).

[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

This is about third-party apps.

[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm going to go ahead and just call this a nothingburger. The context is that you're already a registered user signed into the Facebook, etc. app. You've already volunteered the valuable profile data and the analytics data from actually using the app. If you're already OK with all of that, there's effectively no additional concern with the relatively minor data that can be collected or inferred from the notifications. The very idea that someone should or would turn notifications off on, for example, Instagram because they're concerned about privacy is ridiculous. It's like telling someone not to crack the windows on their car because it might rain, but they're in a convertible with the top down.

[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

One of the more obvious use cases for the Apple Vision Pro is watching videos on a plane, which means you need to be able to download to the app first to watch offline. Netflix's iPad app already works perfectly fine on Apple Vision Pro so supporting it required literally no effort at all. They went out of their way to disable availability.

[–] kirklennon@kbin.social -3 points 1 year ago

This isn’t going to fly with the EU.

If the EU didn't want to allow this then they should have written the law differently, but poorly-written regulations are their specialty. Apple's plan complies with the letter of the law. Developers are free to use a direct sales channel and can offer any price they want, along with various conditions that aren't an option in the App Store. They just have to pay a commission for access to the lucrative market Apple built. The specific percentage of the commission is such that it's not actually a desirable option for developers, but the law didn't say that Apple had to make it desirable to avoid the App Store's existing sales system.

[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

For what it's worth it's possible to test the contents of an egg, but it's moot because it doesn't actually matter when we know. It exists independent of observation.

[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

No, that's not right. The species transitioned from the proto-chicken to the chicken. Whichever specific individual we call the first chicken started off as (say it with me) an egg. The mother's offspring was different enough to be the first chicken.

[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This is not correct. At no point can the offspring in a single generation be differnet enough to be called a different species.

I'm not saying we should call it a different species but if we're saying species Y is the direct descendant of species X, then, we can imagine a dividing line, and the line must always begin with an egg because eggs are different from their parents but adults are not different from the egg they started off as.

In reality things change very slowley over a large amount of time and there a no clear transition points.

Isn't that obvious?

[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (9 children)

"Proto chicken" in this context refers to a genetic ancestor of the chicken. An egg hatches into the exact same species as the egg itself, but the egg is genetically different from the mother that laid the egg, and in this thought experiment, we're talking about the mother being different enough to call a different species.

view more: ‹ prev next ›