Skip to content

'We're done with Teams': German state hits uninstall on Microsoft

Technology
102 64 181
  • 807 Stimmen
    62 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    P
    Yes, indeed this was just a copy error. Thanks for pointing it out.
  • 254 Stimmen
    143 Beiträge
    312 Aufrufe
    S
    Why would every American buy one if they can't afford insurance + medical bills to pay for health care? "Oh look, I'm having a heart attack. Good to know. Guess I'll just keep working."
  • Rediscovering Human Purpose in the Age of AI

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    3 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    capuccino@lemmy.worldC
    well, it seems that the rich will stay rich, no matter what. It's incredible that people see AI as a religion now
  • Apple to Australians: You’re Too Stupid to Choose Your Own Apps

    Technology technology
    60
    1
    398 Stimmen
    60 Beiträge
    131 Aufrufe
    P
    I was always surprised by that (t9 dialing). Surely there was some legal reason for that. It felt so - primative.
  • 38 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    34 Aufrufe
    D
    Not easy but not hard actually really simple if you had the right energy. Just ignore this so I don't scare you.
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    155 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • 2 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    35 Aufrufe
    F
    IMO stuff like that is why a good trainer is important. IMO it's stronger evidence that proper user-centered design should be done and a usable and intuitive UX and set of APIs developed. But because the buyer of this heap of shit is some C-level, there is no incentive to actually make it usable for the unfortunate peons who are forced to interact with it. See also SFDC and every ERP solution in existence.
  • 32 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    33 Aufrufe
    J
    Apparently, it was required to be allowed in that state: Reading a bit more, during the sentencing phase in that state people making victim impact statements can choose their format for expression, and it's entirely allowed to make statements about what other people would say. So the judge didn't actually have grounds to deny it. No jury during that phase, so it's just the judge listening to free form requests in both directions. It's gross, but the rules very much allow the sister to make a statement about what she believes her brother would have wanted to say, in whatever format she wanted. From: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/18471175 influence the sentence From what I've seen, to be fair, judges' decisions have varied wildly regardless, sadly, and sentences should be more standardized. I wonder what it would've been otherwise.