That part is messed up. You shouldn’t be dealing with individual contractors as a patient. All billing should go through the hospital, and be considered in-network provided the hospital is in-network, regardless of what kind of specialist sees you there. Any exception, such as bringing in someone who doesn’t normally work there to treat a rare condition, should require separate and specific authorization from the patient in advance.

The ubuntu:24.04 Docker image is only 77.30 MiB.

alpine:3.19.0 is 7.38 MiB.

Of course those sizes are without a kernel. Typical everything-included distro kernels are generally a few hundred MiB as they include drivers for everything that might be needed, but a custom build for known hardware can reduce that to just a few MiB.

Open primaries invite strategic voters to sabotage the party they want to lose rather than supporting the candidate they want to win.

Of course you can still do that with closed primaries—you just have to register as the party you want to vote for in the primaries, ignoring your own preferences. Nothing forces you to vote for your registered party in the general election. It’s slightly more involved this way since you would need to change your registration more frequently, and commit to it earlier, but that isn’t much of a hurdle.

You’re restricting speech whether or not you confine your censorship to only AI-generated images.

Correction: Fortunately, not unfortunately. A rule like that would prohibit any form of public / street photography, news videos, surveillance videos, family photos with random strangers in the background… it’s not reasonable at all.

Technically it can be statically linked, but then you would need to provide artifacts (for example, object files for the non-LGPL modules) enabling the end user to “recombine or relink” the program with a modified version of the LGPL code.

Dynamic linking is usually simpler, though. And the DRM issues apply either way.

The mother had a claim because the house was literally given to her, which was the right of it’s previous owner.

This person has no claim.

If the previous owners wanted it to remain with the family line they should have formalized that by placing the house in a trust.

Sure, they don’t rule the world. They only have the power to ban you (either the company per se or its individual owners, officers, and/or employees) from ever again doing any business in the EU. Which naturally includes business with any individuals or companies either based in the EU (as a seller or a buyer) or wanting to do business in the EU. Or from traveling to the EU, whether for business or personal reasons. Little things like that. Nothing too inconvenient. (/s)

They haven’t taken things quite that far—yet. But they could. It’s dangerous to assume that you can ignore them without consequences just because your company doesn’t currently depend on revenue from EU customers. The world is more interconnected than that, and the consequences may not be limited to your company.

Geoblocking in such cases would not be sufficient. For one thing your geo-IP database will never be perfectly accurate, even without considering that “data subjects who are in the Union” can connect to your site via proxies or VPNs with non-EU IP addresses. For another you still need to respond to GDPR requests e.g. to remove data collected on a data subject currently residing in the EU, even if the data was collected while they were outside the EU, and you can’t do that if you’re blocking their access to the site. For a newspaper in particular the same would apply to any EU data subject they happened to report on, whether they had previously visited the site or not.

deleted by creator

Your intake of sugar participation in extreme sports absolutely impacts other people when you end up with chronic health issues that other people have to help pay for.

It’s not as if there’s some natural law obligating you to pay for anyone else’s health issues. Your government is responsible for externalizing that private cost onto you and others, effectively subsidizing risk-taking and irresponsibility. If you don’t like it, insist that people pay for their own health care and insurance at market rates, without subsidies.

Nothing says that the owner/buyer of a car has to be the one who drives it. You could buy a car and have someone else drive you around. Or just buy one for someone else to use—for example a parent who doesn’t drive could buy a car for their child who has a license. Or vice-versa. Either way there is no reason for the buyer to need a license.

Except it’s not even that indirect. The government of Texas invented this novel class of private liability, and their courts are the ones enforcing it. That’s the same as banning it themselves, and blatantly unconstitutional.

I’m a bit surprised they didn’t implement this as a tax. That would be just as bad, but the federal government has a long history of imposing punitive taxes on things they aren’t allowed to ban; it would have been harder to fight it that way without forcing an overhaul of the entire tax system… and politicians are so very fond of special-purpose taxes and credits.

Allegories aside, the Bible definitely has a few LGBTQ characters, even if they’re not portrayed in a very positive light. I suppose that means they’ll be banning the Bible from school libraries? Not to mention a fair amount of historical literature… including anything featuring Leonardo da Vinci, Florence Nightingale, King James (yes, that King James), William Shakespeare, King Richard I, or Julius Caesar.

It will be interesting to see whether this makes the history classes easier, for lack of material to cover, or harder, for lack of references.

Who is enforcing this and how?

Liability would be decided by the courts or another form of binding arbitration. Obviously. Harming someone through action or negligence is a tort, and torts are addressed by the judicial branch. Both sides would present their arguments, including any scientific evidence in their favor—the FDA or similar organizations could weigh in here as expert witnesses, if they have something to offer—and the court will decide whether the vendor acted reasonably or has liability toward the defendant.

If you knowingly sell me a car with an engine about to fail, you are in no way accountable.

If you knew that the engine was about to fail and didn’t disclose that fact, or specifically indicate that the vehicle was being sold “as-is” with no guarantees, then you certainly should be accountable for that. Your contract with the buyer was based on the premise that they were getting a vehicle in a certain condition. An unknown fault would be one thing, but if you knew about the issue and the buyer did not then there was no “meeting of the minds”, which means that the contract is void and you are a thief for taking their payment under false pretenses.

Anyway, you continue to miss the point. I’m not saying that everyone should become an expert in every domain. I’m saying that people should be able to choose their own experts (reputation sources) rather than have one particular organization like the FDA (instance/community moderators) pre-filtering the options for everyone. I wasn’t even the one who brought up the FDA—this thread was originally about online content moderation. If you insist on continuing the thread please try to limit yourself to relevant points.

No, I am not okay with bans like that. You should be able to knowingly buy products with mercury in them. Obviously if someone is selling products containing mercury and not disclosing that fact, passing them off as safe to handle, that would be a problem and they would be liable for any harm that resulted from that. But it doesn’t justify a preemptive ban.

You misunderstood. It’s not a middle ground between “can regulate” and “cannot regulate”. That would indeed be idiotic. It’s a middle ground between “must judge everything for yourself” and “someone else determines what you have access to”. Someone else does the evaluation and tells you whether they think it’s worthwhile, but you choose whose recommendations to listen to (or ignore, if you please).

What if they never even hear the FDA recommendation?

Then the FDA isn’t doing a very good job, are they? Ensuring that people hear their recommendations (and trust them) would be among their core goals.

The rare fringe cases where someone is affected indirectly without personally having choosen to purchase the product can be dealt with through the courts. There is no need for preemptive bans.

To put it another way: do you think we should have the FDA? Or do you think everybody should have to test everything they eat and put on their skin?

There is a middle ground. The FDA shouldn’t have the power to ban a product from the market. They should be able to publish their recommendations, however, and people who trust them can choose to follow those recommendations. Others should be free to publish their own recommendations, and some people will choose to follow those instead.

Applied to online content: Rather than having no filter at all, or relying on a controversial, centralized content policy, users would subscribe to “reputation servers” which would score content based on where it comes from. Anyone could participate in moderation and their moderation actions (positive or negative) would be shared publicly; servers would weight each action according to their own policies to determine an overall score to present to their followers. Users could choose a third-party reputation server to suit their own preferences or run their own, either from scratch or blending recommendations from one or more other servers.