LOL

Sure thing.

I did not expect to get Live stuck in my head tonight, but there you go

Edit: Not a complaint BTW, I've owned Throwing Copper since it came out in 94

Prosecutors can amend charges, they are probably still collecting evidence to determine if they can prosecute a higher charge, which is when they'd bring in something like attempted murder.

I'm sure there is some legally restricting element like "a clear intent to kill" which would have to be demonstrated in court to have that charge stick.

Well, that's your problem for not understanding the massive difference, not mine.

Guys that do stupid shit like this aren't thinking

Eh, or they are and this is the emotion they want to feel, the power over others. Which makes them the wrong choice to be a cop, but the "right" choice when it comes to how most departments actually are right now.

This is a second attempt

Alive and well at 70 years young!

He was just voicing for prodigy season 2 (last year), did a guest appearance on quantum leap (delightfully named Woolsey, just like his SG1/SG:A/SGU character, different first name though), with some upcoming stuff like a werewolf game movie, a vampire flick where he plays the vampire's son, and a parody of Doctor Who.

Similarly, I use my windows work laptop for accessing remote (usually Linux) systems, and a few specific apps that are windows only.

My desktops are Linux (and of course my servers here as well), and I have a windows VM for those tools that are windows only that I need. Which I've modified that VM heavily to not have the normal junk from windows.

A recent decision for "security" will require using AAD joined machines only to access email/teams/etc. I was going to make an exception for my machines, then decided against it. My laptop now just sits off to the side, with only teams and outlook running, and its basically all I'll use it for.

That still needs to go through an approval process, so not until September.

Even still, I wouldn't consider that regulation to be the end-all be-all of dealing with it. The ban, iirc, is specifically for "algorithmic price setting". So let's say that goes through, and I'm a landlord. Here's the regulation:

It shall be unlawful to sell, license, or otherwise provide to San Francisco landlords any algorithmic device that sets, recommends, or advises on rents or occupancy levels that may be achieved for residential dwelling units in San Francisco.

Well I can still hire a consultant, can't I? A person, maybe one who works for a larger consulting firm. So I hire them to determine the "appropriate" price. So this consultant needs to come up with the prices for me, how are they going to come up with it?

Well they can still use software to run calculations, right? As long as I, the landlord, am not purchasing, licensing, or otherwise provided a device that uses an algorithm (a very generic term here, which is a separate issue), that consultant can use a variety of tools to come up with values can't they? So the consultant uses multiples of the same systems for evaluation, and provides the landlord with the same price/price range I would have gotten in the first place.

This is how I expect it to be worked around at least.

From about $80/share to $20/share... It kinda did, yeah.

Ooh.

I'm always connected with gigabit, looks like I've got a torrent to permanently seed!

I don't believe I made any claim that a legal advocate on Lemmy is a substitute for legal council.

I said there are advocates out there. There are law groups which focus on open source software and community run services who pay for that work by either the ability for that group to pay on a sliding scale, or completely pro bono as it's supported in the back end by corporate clientele or other similar services. But that's a complete digression.

We do question the validity of claims

Just being candid here - I haven't seen that. In this post or any other by admins. Obviously this could be entirely behind closed doors, but even then, none of that has been communicated here has it?

We also can't afford going to court over every case, even if we were to win, because those processes take large amounts of personal time and have a risk of significant penalties.

And on the basis that no real effort to push back here has been visible, why would any other risk category be any different? Why would someone who could be persecuted want to risk themselves with lemmy.world?

I think the position has been clear, and entirely the decision of Lemmy.world. I'm just being clear about why that creates a trust issue.