Show this to Varoufakis.

Good enough. Now tell me where it is made and you can call it perfect.

Oh well, Augustus was probably bisexual as well, rumored to be a bottom (which was the only thing Romans kind of picked up on) and he was well-known for his serial adultery, although I guess Markie would see this as something cool, while Augustus actually wrote laws against this behavior himself.

I just passed by the settings page and requested all my data. When I receive it, I will delete the account which, according to their full privacy statement, requires them to discard my sample, delete my data AND opt me out of 23andMe Research.

What I could easily see happening is that if that particular subset of users is demonstrated to be high spending, or if the AI wrapper products that appeal to them are going to prove to be, then this result, no matter the direction of the correlation, is going to be disregarded.

Gaius Julius Caesar, most probably bisexual as widely accepted in Roman society, rumored to have been having an affair with the King of Bithynia and affected by mini-strokes or epilepsy.

I bet that if you tell Markie that Caesar was a probably bisexual man affected by mini-strokes and/or epilepsy, he would make those t-shirts disappear in a minute.

Ignorance is bliss.

Crossing my fingers for Ladybird to be that browser.

I am not sure about that within US Law, but given what it usually sums up to, yes, it is a risk, which would make things even faster, possibly.

I guess this is what the first iteration of the Blackwall looks like.

That’s when we come onto the scene.

I am continuously “translating” news and opinions from here on LinkedIn. Already got banned from a professional Slack that contains most people in my industry for saying in a private conversation that I like watermelon.

Not gonna stop. People are not politically inclined because we kept our knowledge to ourselves for too long.

Well, you could dismantle it. I also don’t know if in such a sale all product-related patents follow.

Selling it means receiving money for it. Mozilla without Google support, which at that point would be lacking, wouldn’t have the means.

I guess for Trump they look shiny themselves, while the Google guy looks somehow not white nor orange enough.

I must say that, as a European using a Firefox fork for my daily browsing while waiting for Ladybird, I don’t see that outcome as completely negative: Google, somehow, in America has kept a completely unjustified good vibes feeling surrounding itself, while Thiel is much more evil in the public eye.

If Chrome is associated with him in anyway it can become a more lucid image of itself.

Starting to sound like a new season of Silicon Valley.

Despite what others are saying there is indeed an inaccuracy in calling this a privacy complaint. A lot of people outside of the EU conflate privacy with data protection, but they are not the same and GDPR does not concern with privacy but exclusively with personal data protection.

Accuracy, availability and governance of personal data are indeed important criteria for data protection, and this is what this is about.

Regarding people making shit up, if they make such things public, GDPR governs those just as much, while still referring to the normal legislation for the charges for slander.

As I stated, I am more familiar with the articles of the GDPR, nothing more.

I expect a company like Meta to have a EU corporate entity and legal representation in the EU, in which case the charges can be applied to the EU entity and authorities may even seize assets within the Union.

I bring you the example of the Territorial Scope of the GDPR since it is the one I am most acquainted with:

• This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the Union, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the Union or not.
  

• This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to:
  
                the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or
  
                the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union.
  

• This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data by a controller not established in the Union, but in a place where Member State law applies by virtue of public international law.
  

Similar articles are there for the AI Act (which got JD Vance to talk shit about the EU on the 11th February) and the Product Liability Directive.

This is the reality we live in. Up to you to accept it or not.

They are operating in Europe.