Skip to content

PNG has been updated for the first time in 22 years — new spec supports HDR and animation

Technology
95 61 0
  • 84 Stimmen
    13 Beiträge
    23 Aufrufe
    M
    It's a bit of a sticking point in Australia which is becoming more and more of a 'two-speed' society. Foxtel is for the rich classes, it caters to the right wing. Sky News is on Foxtel. These eSafety directives killing access to youtube won't affect those rich kids so much, but for everyone else it's going to be a nightmare. My only possible hope out of this is that maybe, Parliament and ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority, TV standards) decide that since we need a greater media landscape for kids and they can't be allowed to have it online, that maybe more than 3 major broadcasters could be allowed. It's not a lack of will that stops anyone else making a new free-to-air network, it's legislation, there are only allowed to be 3 commercial FTA broadcasters in any area. I don't love Youtube or the kids watching it, it's that the alternatives are almost objectively worse. 10 and 7 and garbage 24/7 and 9 is basically a right-wing hugbox too.
  • 18 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Remote MCP servers for VSCode

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    7 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 59 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    C
    "mistakes"
  • 210 Stimmen
    31 Beiträge
    64 Aufrufe
    T
    In 2025 it would be anything above 3.6 million. It's a ton of money but here's a list of a few people that hit it. https://aflcio.org/paywatch/highest-paid-ceos Now if they added in a progressive tax rate for corporate taxes as well.... Say anything over 500 million in net profit is taxed at a 90+% rate. That would solve all sorts of issues. Suddenly investors of all these mega corps would be pushing hard to divide up the companies into smaller entities. Wealth tax in the modern age could be an inheritance tax. Anything over the median life earnings of individuals could be taxed at 100%. So median earnings in my area is $65K * 45 years (20-65k) = $2.93 million.
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    15 Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.
  • 18 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    freebooter69@lemmy.caF
    The US courts gave corporations person-hood, AI just around the corner.
  • Mazda DMCA takedown of Open Source Home Assistant App

    Technology technology
    6
    108 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    15 Aufrufe
    S
    Soon this all will be much easier. From 12 of September we’re going into a new world of EU Data Act that forces all companies to allow third parties to communicate with iot devices. Which a car is. So soon Mazda will need to provide those APIs in an official way.