> It's of course entirely their prerogative to not offer any guarantees at all.
If Assange wanted to have a guarantee of not being extradited he should have submitted an application for this to the Swedish justice department and have it reviewed. That's what the law require. The prosecutor or politicians cannot offer any guarantees and trying to bypass the procedure would be breaking the law.
So no, it's not their prerogative. Stop spreading misinformation, it's tiresome.
It's absolutely their prerogative to give him a guarantee.
Or, they can choose to undermine their credibility as a champion of human rights by providing no guarantees of humane treatment to any person under extradition.
Many countries opt to follow this route (not nice countries, mind) and thus voluntarily "fail" to extradite a great number of guilty people as a result. Refusal to respect human rights often comes at a cost.
Sweden's hands were not tied on this issue and it was a reasonable request. The reasonableness and the apparent politically motivated intransigence of the Swedish justice system (something noted by eagle eyed GCHQ employees in leaked emails) is a large part of why the application for asylum was approved.
This is also probably why he made the offer ~30 times.
> It's absolutely their prerogative to give him a guarantee.
By breaking the law? You can't just request something from a prosecutor. You have to follow the process for these kinds of things. The prosecutor has no right to grant what he requested, so how do you propose he would do it?
> The prosecutor who was in close contact with politicia s passes it up the chain of command.
There's no one up the chain of command who is allowed to make the decision. The justice department or the politicians does not have the rights to grant this. You would know this if you had basic knowledge about how Sweden is governed.
It is funny how you claim that there wee unprecedented exceptions for this case when you clearly know zero on the topic. It's an embarrassing read, honestly.
Can you clarify the distinction? They share the source code so that other people can do auditing, obviously. But what would be the scenario where you are allowed to read the code, but you're not allowed to look for issues? Have you ever seen that set up anywhere? It would not make any sense.
> You just kind of wait for ethical people to come forward and explain bugs they've found
And the same apply to open source software. It's not like all the bugs in open source software was fixed in audits or that you somehow magically know how long time the issue has been attacked by bad actors.
> If you have 3 environments, dev staging and prod, you want resources in these environments to be named _exactly the same_ in each environment.
So your production database server has the same resource name as your dev database server?
Good luck running that on Azure.
Re your edit: When people have strong views ("absolutely not") and rants about it and yet does not seem to grasp what the article about, I think the opinion of those people should be ignored. Consider that.
Eh. Sure, I slightly mis-read the article, it happens.
Just preface my block of text with a "tangentially, when it comes to 'workloads' ... [the rest of the block of text]", and now you have a generic comment, not about the article, but about something related.
When people skim through something in a sloppy way and then focus on writing a rant about it I just don't take their view seriously. If people can't be bothered to carefully digest information, I just assume that they don't know what they are talking about. You may be right or wrong, but I would just choose to listen to people who did their homework instead.
Seeing as these are the only two comments you've made on this thread, it seems like you're not ignoring what you claim should be ignored and taking all this a bit too seriously.
Whether it makes sense to add the stage name to a resource name is a decision that is informed by a wider context that includes hosting environment, deployment pattern and configuration approach. It can make sense in some situations and can be a bad idea in other situations.
So you have signed up for insider builds? Then claiming that they have "randomly thrown" it at you is just odd. You explicitly told them you wanted early builds.
Not OP but I'm in the same boat. I signed up for insider (dev) builds to get X support in WSL2, then set it to switch me back to insider (beta) builds on the next opportunity. But they didn't do another beta or any other insider built really before rolling out Win11 to dev so that's what I got on the next update. There also wasn't any notice this would happen despite my machine apparently not meeting the requirements for Windows 11.
I'm not complaining but it was definitely unexpected for me despite being in the insiders program. Especially given that Windows 11 is being promoted as the "next version of Windows", not just another Windows 10 release.
FWIW my volume slider is still a slider. I have no idea what's going on in that screenshot but either they're A/B testing, this is a weird language-specific UI variant or there's a bug.
I guess you're too young to remember when ALL transactions involved trust. Cheques didn't even have any kind of verification whatsoever, you just handed them out and the shops had to just hope they would clear... if they did not, the payee could obviously get into trouble with the law, but criminals still found creative ways to get away with it... watch the movie "Catch me if you can" to see one of the most entertaining abuses of cheques in history.
Once the transaction goes through your account at the bank (in case of debit) will be overdrawn and the bank will charge a penalty sum/interest as well as asking you to put funds in to get it back to a positive balance again.
Almost all Visa/Mastercard cards support this. It's actually better with chip cards since they're MCUs, capable of storing data including offline 'credit limits' and tabulating how much has been debited offline. Can verify pins offline too.
When you buy food/beer on a plane/train, this is probably happening. Ryanair would rather eat the cost of a fraudulent payment than pay for data and slow down their salespeople.
When I paid with a semi-broken machine recently, I actually had to sign a slip. I think the machine just read my IBAN as if the chip was a magnet strip. The offline credit limits are more of an optimization.
BTW the post you're replying to is factually correct. As a government the EU does not innovative in the sense normally understood by the word, e.g. it does not introduce surprising new products, or (directly) create new technologies. It does however regulate.
Well yes, but FreeSpeech's comment was grey and flagged when I saw it, even though it's indeed kind of so obvious it's pointless. And it had a reply disagreeing, so it needed to be spelled out.
> If the person signing the paychecks wants the page to have 15MB of sketchy third-party JS, then the page will have 15MB of sketchy third-party JS.
I was asked by management to add Google Tag Manager to the company site. When I saw that GTM included 15-20 tracking scripts I told them that unfortunately we can't include it until we have ensured that all of them act in accordance with GDPR. Legal was involved and agreed. Marketing gave up.
You're technically correct, but people who write pay checks often can be argued with. They often don't want to be on record taking decisions which can cause issues, and legal typically don't want to sign of on including 15MB unknown scripts on your site accepting credit cards.
> You're technically correct, but people who write pay checks often can be argued with.
That's true, but the proliferation of ad tech junk is strong evidence that this is the exception rather than the rule. Capital will persuade labor to do its bidding far more often than not.
What's the solution?
If anything, the proliferation of ad tech junk and 15MB of various ad-related things is probably better than just that 1MB of only Google Ads scripts, no?
Or are we going to talk about how online advertising has been the economic backbone of the web? Not that I'm advocating for it, by hiding the true cost of things, publishers have brought this onto themselves really.
So no more ads? That's probably going to kill a lot of sites, whether they are contributing anything to mankind or not.
Yeah sure let's bury our head in the sand and pretend all forms of media will thrive while only selling subscriptions but so far, we've seen how it went for the older ones (newspaper, radio, tv ...)
Or we can acknowledge that advertisment is there to stay and we instead develop a proper framework to make it work sanely rather than all the duct-taping we've done so far.
The real failure is the unwillingness to confront the fact that ads were there to stay and should have been baked into a W3C standard ages ago instead but here we are.
Surveillance capitalism isn't the same as advertising. But I think your point is undercut by the fact that most of the industries you mentioned are doing… fine? TV is thriving selling ads (broadcast/cable) and also subscriptions (Netflix/etc). Radio is thriving selling ads (terrestrial) and also subscriptions (Spotify/etc). Even newspapers are figuring this thing out; NYT added a record number of subscribers last year.
Do you have strong evidence that developers think about these things and bring it up with legal? I'd not, then the only strong evidence is that developers are sloppy.
None? I have no clues what marketings goal are and frankly I don't care. If they want to insert some junk.js into their web page they need at least to ensure it is legal.
Not really, no. There are 500 people in marketing organization and I doubt there are less than 20 conflicting end goals within that organization. Unless you're going all fluffy and talk about company goal as said by the owners.
Either way, if their process of reaching their end goal included steps which legal dismissed then they needed to go back to the drawing board and figure out a new strategy, right? It would be strange for me who doesn't work in their profession come and tell them how to solve their issues.
Because the prosecutor can't give any such blanket guarantees. That would be illegal.
Assange obviously knew this and tried to play the media, which failed.