This is absolutely not fine, but it’s probably not illegal under the EU DMA.

The EU requires Apple to allow direct installation of apps, but tolerates Apple requiring the apps to be signed with an Apple-approved key, which makes it possible for Apple to ban developers.

Google’s plan seems to be similar.

I imagine things would be much closer if they put a giant heatsink that Ryzen 370 they’re comparing and ran it at its 54W configurable TDP instead of the default 28W.

A while ago, I came across a curated list of no-BS games for Android and iOS.

BS consists of ads or barriers to progress that can’t be removed with a one-time payment. It has user ratings, and the highly-rated games are nearly certain to be good examples of their category.

It works when you’re not at home, so probably better for a mobile device.

All of those things should be illegal, and many of them are. Ideally, someone would go to jail, but until that happens, might I suggest a solution to block most mobile ads?

Should it fall upon me?

Maybe.

One option is a proactively regulated market where only companies pre-approved by the government can sell anything, and every product must be checked and approved before it’s offered for sale. Such a market won’t have many fake products, but it also won’t have much competition or innovation. It’s also very likely to attract corruption, where the government conditions approvals on unrelated behavior that the current leadership prefers or requires bribes to do business. We’re seeing the former in the USA with the Trump administration for certain types of businesses, and it isn’t pretty.

The current situation for most product categories is a reactively regulated market. Deceptive practices are illegal, but enforcement depends on someone noticing and reporting them. More deceptive products make it to consumers, but more groundbreaking products do as well. It’s hard for government officials to blackmail most businesses.

This was never the concern that caused people to call users “glassholes”.

Meta spying is its own issue, and I think a very legitimate concern.

I’m understanding the concern the article mentions about smart glasses in general (independent of who manufactures them) being the user recording people. That’s what people seemed to be upset about when Google Glass launched as well.

Smart glasses also raise many privacy concerns, as their cameras and microphones may be recording at any given time, which can be unnerving to people.

This reaction has always struck me as, at best ill-informed. If I search for spy camera glasses on Amazon, I can find much cheaper and less obvious options to record people without their knowledge. If glasses are getting extra scrutiny lately, maybe I’d be better off with a spy camera pen or something like this which can be disguised as part of a button-up shirt.

Of course actually using any of these to record people without their consent in most situations makes you an asshole, but that capability already existed and is continually expanding.

I used that code with a couple tweaks. I tag !flashlight@lemmy.world in the posts so they appear there as well.

I’ve been using a similar solution with my static site at https://zakreviews.com/ for years.

In Europe the age of consent is variable but 16 is common, and it can be a bit jarring when you see the reactions of Americans to anyone under 18.

Many Americans would be surprised to learn that it varies by state in the USA as well, and the relationship described in the OP wouldn’t be a crime in many states.

I don’t think 18 would be any less creepy in this scenario. Creepy doesn’t always mean immoral, but it’s usually exploitative for a 48 year old man to date a teenager, and it’s reasonable that OP is concerned about it.

Everyone sucks here.

she took off my condom without permission

Removing a condom without consent during sex is sexual assault. You’re absolutely right to break off a relationship or go no-contact for this. In many jurisdictions, you could press criminal charges.

I even called an old coworker to ask if she had her citizenship because I was trying to avoid child support.

That’s not OK even if you’re very scared.

That’s mostly true; it’s optimized for wide dissemination of information, and the idea of keeping a specific person from seeing information that’s shown to the rest of the world isn’t very compatible with that. It doesn’t really work on Reddit or web forums that are visible without logging in either since a person you’ve blocked can still view your posts anonymously.

A bit more looking brings me to the ActivityPub spec. Your server should tell the blocked user’s server about the block, and the blocked user’s server shouldn’t allow them to interact with your posts or comments (that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be able to see your posts or comments).

The thing is, in network protocol documents, should means the behavior is optional. Fediverse software doesn’t have to support blocks at all according to the protocol.

The only way to do that in a federated system would be to effectively make blocks public. That has its own disadvantages.

I’m no expert on the subject, but it’s my understanding that mobile networks are being deployed much more widely in the global south than wired telephone lines, and they’re usually internet-capable.

I thought phone numbers and traditional telephone service would be dead by now. Instead, purely internet-based communication services often use them as an identifier.

Which nullifies the point of certificates having an expiration date (limited window for exploiting a compromised certificate, possibility of domains changing hands), not the point of validating the signature (tie responsibility for apps to who owned a domain on a specific date, allow third parties to create blacklists of bad developers).

How? Expiration doesn’t grant an unauthorized party access to the private key.