lime!

eu citizens initiatives are official tools of the public to help draft new laws.

ok, just checking

oh fun, an actual “taxation is theft” person. i’m assuming you don’t drive?

i do want the icons, yeah.

vpn is on the right, yeah. but this is with just one sim:

with two i get another signal strength and wifi calling symbol. it’s already collapsing them when not on the quick setting screen, which is very frustrating.

i mean the bezels together are less than 1cm. and the notch takes space from notifications, with two sim cards and a vpn active that shit overflows instantly anyway.

i think they mean “under” as in “behind”.

agree, i just wish they kept a model like the Z* Compact around.

aw man, this is the first i’m hearing about discontinuation. apparently it’s because people want larger phones?!

i have a 5 IV and it is by far the largest phone i’ve ever owned… i wish it was like an inch smaller. but it was the only model i could find that doesn’t have a non-rectangular screen. these bloody camera cutouts are everywhere and i never even use the front camera.

was gonna say, this seems like the best outcome for this particular trial. there was potential for fair use to be compromised, and for piracy to be legal if you’re a large corporation. instead, they upheld that you can do what you want with things you have paid for.

middle name, sorry

i was on mobile so i was keeping it terse. let’s see if i can expand a bit now that i’m at a keyboard.

the right to repair movement is fighting companies that deliberately make it harder to fix things, so that customers will have to use company services to repair their stuff, or buy new stuff. john deere and apple are two big players here, with cryptographical signatures built into parts that void the warranty if they don’t match. this is actively adversarial behavior and should plainly be illegal. skg, on the other hand, is fighting companies that just leave their stuff to rot. they’re just neglecting their product once there is no profit in it, which you can’t really say about e.g. john deere; they are obligated by law to provide parts for the things they sell for x amount of years after they no longer sell the product itself.

so, the two are in different legal frameworks: right to repair is trying to stop capture of the spare parts market, while skg is fighting for there to even be a spare parts market. and that’s where my previous point comes in: while machines are inherently understood to be repairable (because they used to be) and the fact that companies are trying to clamp down on that is plainly obvious, software has never been generally understood to be changeable by the end user. it has always been an enthusiast/professional-only thing.

so, equating the two may harm either
a) rtr, because of the assumption that only people with the correct credentials should have access to repair parts,
b) skg, because of the assumption that they want companies to provide support for things for up to several years like in the parts market, or
c) both, because of the assumption that they want the same thing, which, if implemented, would make neither side happy.

i’m not 100% sure i’m making sense here, because on some level i do think they share similarities. of course they do. but how do you present that to a group of amateurs (legislators) in a coherent way? i don’t think you can without harming either cause.

because to most people software is not a thing that can be repaired.

that’s an assumption. for all we know they would have connected the two, or seen one as harmless and implemented it, or lobbied against both.

and that’s what the regulation is for. to get them to plan ahead.

But most of the key points he raised were sensationalized but not actually wrong if you look at things from a developer perspective.

they were also not really relevant to the campaign, which was the biggest problem with his comments. there was no expectation that studios do extra work to keep servers up, or make offline clients. the expected legislation was to have publishers allow external use of the relevant source code of the product when the publisher deems the work no longer profitable, to spare people the effort of reverse-engineering protocols and building their own servers. a knock-on effect of that would be that future services would have to be built with eventual shutdown procedures in mind, which, let’s face it, they should already have been doing.

thor was saying “this isn’t feasible because it’s a bunch of extra work for the developers”, completely missing the point that this is not on the developers. it’s on the company sitting on the IP. they can publish source trees no problem, no developer involvement necessary. and the legislation would have made sure of that fact.

that was sort of the point though. a big case with a narrow focus can later be used as a fulcrum for a wider scope, given that the original case has the right spin. it’s also easier than going after the anti-repair people.

thor is a tech youtuber. it’s just his actual name.

yeah my opinion on piratesoftware was really cemented by his inability to do a charitable reading of the petition.

the countries were always separate within the union, it was a federation. they had their own flags and languages.