cccbbbaaa

> Though I'm not sure if the GDPR allows for data to be stationed in Switzerland.

There is a treaty between the EU and Switzerland for this. Full list of countries here: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/i...

Yes, that is what case C-582/14 concluded.

> GDPR is not clear on IP address or IP address derived metadata. There is no case law for it,

There is, see C-582/14 which concludes that IP address, even dynamic, are personal data.

No, logs don't require consent in that case, see recital 49.

> the Ariane 6 was an R&D test launch with no payload

The cubesats do not count as payloads?

Use bépo, of course! More seriously, Airbus uses qwerty since at least the A380. This means that the A350 and the A330, two aircrafts that share a type rating, do not use the same layout.

I believe the A350 has it in qwerty.

In my country: MED-2020-015 (against the ministry of health), SAN-2023-023. Maybe more.

I've heard about form fields hidden with CSS multiple times. No idea how effective this is though.

No, the minimum fines are in the hundreds, and that’s on the unlikely event where you actually get a fine. Fines over a million are definitely not the norm. See GDPR article 83 and https://www.enforcementtracker.com/

> So in essence, it disallows logging IP address for any purpose, be it security, debugging, rate-limiting etc. because you can't give consent in advance for this, and no other sentence in Art. 6.1 applies.

In addition to the other answers, I want to point out that recital 49 says that it is possible under legitimate interest (6(1)f).

There is the same kind of language in GDPR (see article 2(2)D), but it still did not prevent this decision: https://www.laquadrature.net/en/2025/01/31/justice-finally-f...

This colorspace is used internally by the color balance RGB module of Darktable (and Ansel).

That, or the more recent darktable UCS: https://eng.aurelienpierre.com/2022/02/color-saturation-cont...

It says that simply telling the user that the language setting uses a cookie is enough to obtain consent in this case. Not that you need a full blown banner. The CNIL even says you don't need consent to do it.

> The EU has had since 2009 to clarify this

They did, back in 2012. See point 3.6 here: https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinio...

More recently, see point 49 here (in French): https://www.cnil.fr/sites/cnil/files/atoms/files/lignes_dire...

It doesn't. They are useful for the REPL only, to tell it that a statement is over. I prefer this over what Python does, which is to consider that an empty line is the end of a statement. Copy-pasting functions from a file to the REPL can be a bit tedious because of this. In OCaml, all I have to do is to add ;;<enter>, and I'm good to go.

Apparently, they removed the soft update feature: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=171489385310956&w=2

There is an alarm on dual inputs.

Interestingly, when this happens on the 777 (and I guess the 787), the inputs are averaged, like on an Airbus.

The snippet in the first update is very wrong. The manpage for Linux’s implementation of close() explicitly says that it should not be called again if it fails. Apparently, this is the same under FreeBSD.

Their claim is false. The eCommerce Directive (2000/31/CE), article 14, exempts service providers of liability when they merely act as hosts (eg. comment sections, chat services, you name it), as long as they are not aware of hosting illegal content.

Changy recently claimed on BFM TV that she made her scenario up after being pressured by her editor.

In reality, fines represent less than 1% of the EU's revenue.

Fines were less than 1% of the revenue of the EU in 2023, to be more precise. I don't know how people here got the idea that the EU can fund itself only with such fines, to be honest.

The law you're thinking about is GDPR. It does allow to host data outside of the EU if the rights of the data subjects are not weakened.

Source: GDPR articles 44, 45, and 46.

> Fines based on gains and damages, not revenue.

That's already the case (cf. article 83(2)). The percentage of revenue thing in articles 83(4) and 83(5) is a cap, not a fixed amount. I don't think anybody was ever fined the maximal amount possible.

> And a trebling of damages where noncompliance is shown to be willful.

This is taken into account, cf. article 83(2)b. Not a trebling though, it's up to the DPA to decide, and cannot exceed the cap.

> You'd have to physically break through the jammed control mechanism to get to that point, otherwise, they're mechanically linked up to a certain amount of pressure.

That's what I said.

Interestingly, the BEA pointed out that the dual input rate is the same on Airbuses and Boeings (cf. https://bea.aero/fileadmin/user_upload/F-GSQJ_finalreport_EN..., page 47). Lack of communication and stressful environment here too, maybe coupled commands would not have saved AF447 after all…

> Anyways, the point is, assigning blame in this way is petty and weird on the authors part.

I agree, but you're doing the same thing as the author of the article: taking the fact that the captain pulled on the stick, and try to find something to blame the plane.

Unlike in your car example where the steering authority is “suddenly” reduced, the flight envelope protection system is always here, and pilots are trained accordingly. Full stick back is not uncommon on Airbuses, e.g. in a windshear escape manoeuvre. And as pointed out by others in this thread, it was actually the correct action. Oh well, if alpha max was 1° higher on the 320, maybe the landing would have been softer.

> for making a plane that _averages_ the inputs of the two pilots to arrive at an overall control output, without any real warning,

For what it's worth, the 777 does the same when there is too much opposing force on the yokes. At least on Airbuses, there is an aural warning.

Here's a hint: the most innovative ones were not invented by OpenBSD.