elmo2you

I think we can "thank" the popularity of the startup business model (and the prolific idea/delusion that this is where innovation takes place) first and foremost for that.

Personally, I've rather just seen an increase in deception and questionable investments (of money and other resources), compared to more traditional approaches. I'd even go as far as to call most of the startup based industry "Smoke and Mirrors Inc", but that might be a bit on the cynical side.

Still, securing more investments for "potential" solutions (more like regardless of actual feasibility) appears to have become a higher priority than actually showing/proving that something is an improvement (by any measure besides the financials gains for early investors).

EDIT: While this sure does not rule out the possibility of true innovation and progress, I can't say I'm impressed with the actually success ratio. Combined with the amount of downright deception I've seen, usually without legal consequences (let alone penal ones), I wonder if the net sum is even a move in the positive direction.

These negotiation most likely precede the pandemic, considering the original planned release for May 2020. Regardless though, a deal was struck and no pandemic or other unforeseen circumstances will change that contract unless it is renegotiated in mutual agreement.

Disney may argue why it deviated from their contractual obligations, and some of that might sound reasonable in light of the pandemic reality. But that doesn't change that they still violated their contract.

Doing business is a lot of taking (calculated) risks and trying to make a profit that way. Contracts exist to protect the interests of those involved. Of course Disney couldn't foresee the pandemic, but they still made a calculated risk by locking something down in a contract. From that moment on, they were stuck to their deal. If reality made that a tough pill to swallow, tough luck. That's the risk of doing business.

So, then how does that technically work? How will integrity be verified/guaranteed?

If it's just an application level shielding, as in a separation between user software that can't access the information but a layer/cluster of infrastructure software that can, then I'm not so sure if its nothing more than rather meaningless cosmetics.

Do you by any change have some references as to how this would work? because I sincerely believe that this statement of "decentralization means access to all" actually fundamentally holds.

EDIT: I'm also doubting the classification of decentralized, if a piece of the user software relies on something else that has more capabilities (essentially a typical trait of centralization).

Your concerns likely are legit and justified. It appears indeed what plenty of governments are already working on and pushing towards just that .. and it won't be pretty if they ever manage to convince enough people to make it a mandatory if not the only legitimate way of monetary exchange.

However, I think it's actually the current unregulated crypto currencies ecosystem that should worry people far more. Consider the shady people that operate this space and their ability to mine all kinds of data. People might be surprised how valuable and useful behavioral data of individuals can be, especially when it relates to how they behave when dealing with speculative and uncertain dynamics (like e.g. the realities of crypto currencies themselves). That's all I will say about it.

I believe that the moment you hold valuable assets (i.e. any value of crypto currency) in any wallet, then you should report that (even now).

I have no idea how these new rules will play out, but I can image how exchanges might be forced allow only transactions with "sanctioned" wallets (i.e. traceable to person), and international exchanges not playing complying being blocked from to the EU market.

How private are those then? Isn't it true that at least everything is visible to at least all participants?

EDIT: in other words, my question is actually whether your claim has relevance, considering how most crypto currencies aim to be public (or that's at least my impression).

That is actually a surprisingly simple yet fundamentally true summation. Thank you.

I'm definitely not a lawyer/expert on this, even less about Germany specifically, but isn't actual financial damage required for financial compensation? While Stockfish might have suffered damage from ChessBase's behavior, if it can't be clearly specified as monetary damage, I don't really see how they could make money from this.

On the other hand, if ChessBase is found (and ruled) to have distributed software illegally, the company and its executives might have another problem. I don't know the specifics of German law, but I believe that distributing software (or any product) illegally is actually a criminal offense (no longer a civil dispute). That could (theoretically/eventually) lead to criminal prosecution and who knows .. jail time?

I'm puzzled as to how Tesla managed to get a patent (granted) on this. Maybe it's for a very specific implementation of the extraction process using table salt, but I'd swear this is not a new phenomenon. Nor can phenomenons themselves patented, only specific implementations (which can get practically hairy very quickly, hence the mess the patent system currently is).

Sounds to me like yet another attempt, with enough spin to turn a planet, to again try "prove" how Tesla will be a game changer, by presenting something that's rather mediocre and mundane (at best) on closer inspection.

Simply put, in all these years (ever since his PayPal days) I have not seen a single thing come from Elon Musk that didn't turn out to involve some kind of clever fraud, business trickery, or downright deception on closer inspection. But apparently a substantial part of today's (global) society just loves to be fooled, rather than pay attention and actually understand things. I guess it's similar to what they say about governments .. we all get the ones we (collectively) deserve.

I don't know anything about this particular situation, so please consider the following purely speculative in regards to this case.

I have lived for a long time in a country where insane bureaucracy and corruption are the norm. Probably up there with some of the worst on this planet. I've also seen quite a bit of what happens behind the scenes, from relationships with what someone might call the more privileged section of society. One thing I can say with a high degree of certainty from those experiences (no, I won't talk details): there usually are strong connections between the interests of powerful corporations/entities and insane bureaucracy and corruption, whenever the latter two exist. Even if they might not be directly the source or reasons for the existence of the latter, powerful corporations certainly know how to use their influence to maintain a dysfunctional status quo and use it to their advantage wherever they see an opportunity for it.

While NYC bureaucracy no doubt exists for other reasons, it does not rule out there be something else going on here as well. Not a chance in hell anyone but a whistle-blower could ever prove that though. But that's exactly why it's so tempting for powerful entities to nurture and support corrupt/dysfunctional systems (as for them they work just fine, if not better).

I can not speak for NYC (or anywhere inside the USA for that matter), but I have seen powerful entities work officials so that the function of governments would not improve.

Of course, every American is free to believe no such things ever would take place in the USA .. however, that would certainly make the country exceptional (for a change), compared to how things works pretty much everywhere else on the planet.

It isn't directly as much about the hegemony of any country or nation.

It's more about huge capital/business interests that have found their way into political parties in both the EU and most of its member states. While democracy is a great thing if it indeed represents the will of a people, even if divided by philosophical and practical disagreements, when political parties (covertly) become lobbying agencies for large business interests it becomes a very different story.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the collapse of Yugoslavia, plenty of business were immediately involved with the "privatizations" of (formerly) nationalized resources and services. A lot of that was done with the assistance of local collaborators, many of which later became what we now call those local oligarchs and way too powerful politicians. What is currently happening has a lot to do with reigning back in these locals, after becoming a bit too powerful (and greedy), and taking even more than was already originally taken (if not stolen).

A big problem in all this is that shady business deals often stay below the radar of ordinary citizens, even though these same business deals might be of a huge influence of what happens in the (international) political arena.

Just as an example, think about how Royal Dutch Shell managed to score exclusive rights to natural resources in the Ukraine, for I believe as much as a decade. This happened either right before or shortly after the change of power in the country, but certainly before Crimea and the east of the country decided that they did not agree their new masters in Kiev. Now, go and guess where most of those natural resources are located. Looks to me like Shell just lost a lot of potential profit there. But of course the military/policing campaign that followed was all about crushing local terrorism. The key point in all this: I don't remember even a single EU news outlet running any story about Shell and the serious investments it just made (and then saw evaporate) in the Ukraine. This is just an example. There are plenty of other stories where business deals made in the dark end up being "conveniently coincide" with political events involving former Soviet or Yugoslavian countries.

Just like the EU government and media suffering from a case of instant autism regarding the (filmed) police brutalities in Serbia last year, despite many NGO's writing letters to both EU governments and the media alike. Of course it is a coincidence that the EU was just about to conduct talks with the country's president about Kosovo, where foreign industrialist would love to finally get their hands on the trillions (as in literally trillions) worth of natural resources. Something the "independence" war of Kosovo didn't manage to fully achieve, much to the dismay of some very powerful people.

It is said that Kosovo "happened" not long after members of the Albanian mafia made considerable campaign contributions to US lawmakers linked to the Clinton administration. I've seen plenty of Serbs therefore claim that this mafia essentially bought itself their own fiefdom. In reality, they are more like the local useful idiots who get a relatively small reward for their cooperation. The real story is how foreign industrialist (tried to) get their hands on this very important piece of land. For historical reference: Hitler rushed to Kosovo to get exclusive control over it. Back then for the same reason as now: key natural resources. There's some very interesting stuff in the ground there (and not all of it publicly declared, but it can be deduced with some basic knowledge of geology)

> But blaming the printer, really? That's like blaming an intern...

To clarify, I mean the printer as a company, not the device .. and yes, it indeed is as bad as blaming the intern.

I'm afraid this is not at all bullshit, even though I wish it was so.

While it is true that these opposing countries no doubt each have their own problems with (local/national) corruption and oligarchies, the ideologies that are currently being forced on them are very much the product of corruption and oligarchies on a much larger scale (just better hidden). In fact, none of these ideologies are what they claim to be.

This is all about powers who have essentially hijacked the EU project for their own greedy gains. This ideological criticism in reality just attempts to crush the (relatively amateurishly organized) local competition to their own hegemony. That isn't propaganda. It's an organization who cleverly knows how to abuse the general ignorance of most citizens regarding these countries and abusing it to frame reality into a conveniently useful picture/justification for their attempt to take (even more) control.

As much as there is all kind of things wrong with these opposing countries, of which there indeed is plenty, there is equally nothing good or lofty about what the EU is doing at the moment. As ironic as it might be, the local corruption and oligarchies in these countries may in fact only be child's play compared what has infested the EU.

The main difference probably being the success with which criminal elements within the EU have managed to hide their activities from the general population. Probably not in the least by "outsourcing" a lot of its business to either outside EU, or to local shady endeavors in these countries now criticized, where it's a lot easier to hide how profits are being made.

Of course, countries like Czechia, Hungary, Poland and a few more certainly should do more about their internal corruption. But what most people forget is that the current status quo to a large degree was build up and supported by powerful figures within the EU. Most of that because these corruptions at the fringes of the EU territory just so happened to be very convenient and profitable for the people who "accidentally" let all of this happen on their watch. Mind you, figures like Victor Orban became as powerful as they are now by gaming EU rules, with the full knowledge of those who made and governed those rules!

I believe the official explanation was an "interpretation error" of the vector image used as the source. The printer has taken "full responsibility" for this mistake and apologized. How convenient. From a technical perspective not very plausible, if not borderline impossible.

More likely, a deliberate choice made by a powerful individual, for which anyone with any actual knowledge or proof knows all to well that it would be suicide to talk about it publicly. Whether that would be literal or figurative suicide, that is debatable. Either way though, while Croatia is part of the EU these days, the way in which things function are still very much similar to some other countries in the region .. where powerful individuals can make arbitrary decisions with absolute impunity.

There are plenty of powerful individuals in Croatia who harbor strong sympathies towards the country's dark fascist history. Plenty of those managed to get away with their role in war profiteering (or worse), during the last wars. Probably more than anything because they happened to be useful and on the side of powerful corrupt people in the USA and EU. Regretfully so, because Croatia is beautiful country and home to some incredibly whole/goodhearted people (very much like in other former Yugoslavian states).

> Red Hat sets the Standard

Not so sure that's something you should be proud of, considering the kind of standards they are setting. Also, not so sure about how much standards they really are, if it's mostly the Red Hat customer base and fan club that considers these actual standards.

Unless the telemetry is somehow a form of payment for using the (open source) product, I think your argument falls under:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I don't think it's always that easy. Once people are committed to a certain product, quitting or switching to an alternative isn't always simple or even possible. There can even be substantial financial damage involved. Maybe not in a way that the producer can be held legally liable for, but damage nonetheless.

I believe this argument of "users have a freedom to either take it or leave it" has been repeatedly debunked many times over. It just isn't accurately describing reality.

It certainly looks that way. Though in fairness, gaslighting implies the intent to deceive. I fear that these folk could actually be more of the kind that simply doesn't see anything wrong with their way of "making" money.

While technically legal (although the last about that might not have been said either), I think they are going to find out how their grubby ideas of right-and-wrong might not align at all with a substantial part of the user base of the product they now own.

I believe that they are already doing actual practical harm in some places, which might end up costing them dearly if it would trigger some kind of organized revolt. With their behavior so far, that can/will only end in escalation. I very much doubt that the plans of this new owner will become the financial success they may have imagined.

Sadly, Audacity as a product will no doubt suffer as a consequence. Still makes me wonder if there hasn't been some kind of financial support/injection by a commercial vendor involved, somehow. Of course it doesn't have to, but the idea just does not want to leave me alone.

Thank you.

It sure sounds plausible, as much as I dislike it. It's one thing to see startups involved in questionable business practices with their own/new products. Quite another seeing existing useful software be destroyed by it. Looks like all that talk about the GPL being too restrictive doesn't mean that much in practice, if stunts like these can still be pulled.

I remember reading blog posts from browser extension maintainers, at least 3 or 4 times, who spoke out about regularly being approached by shady buyers for exactly that reason. Unless they were all making things up, I'd say it may indeed be something that is happening. I don't remember the sources, but I guess you're capable of using a search engine too.

While there is room for arguments whether these changes to Audacity actually constitutes spying, I believe it's rather their vague wording (and potential reach) that worries people. Rightfully so, I would say. More often than not, developments like these don't end up well. Also the relative little info there is known about this new owner (or backers) appears worrisome.

Anyone knows if there is more known about this new owner, their history and or financial backers?

When this news initially broke, I remember there was a lot of mystery (with some few red flags) surrounding this new owner. I got an uncomfortable feeling that this could even be a front or proxy for a commercial entity that sees Audacity as competition. Not sure how much was payed, but this could be a relatively cheap way of knocking out an open source alternative. On the other hand, abusing an existing install base for any kind of intelligence harvesting also is a popular business model these days (actually criminal in many countries, but sadly hardly ever enforced as such).

Either way, after reading several pages of back and forth on this issue a while ago, I'm convinced that these new owners either don't quite get what they bought (or what it means) or that they do but simply can't really care (and therefore can't be trusted).

Until there's a fork, I'm not toughing this with a ten feet pole.

I do sympathize with how it must have felt during that presentation, but I do wonder why anyone would take the words of any high ranking US military official serious at all, at anything they say. After all, they are just representatives of an ideologically warped criminal enterprise, perpetually serving the interests of a questionable industry that rose to prominence during WW1 and WW2.

War is a racket and so is the industry that feeds on the perceived threat of one. The humongous US military budget ends up (at least a substantial of it) in private pockets somehow. The US is of course not the only country playing that racket, but it certainly is the undisputed biggest player. Speaking truth to principles and morals is simply out of the question for anyone involved, with that amount of capital changing hands.

I was thinking along a similar line while reading that article.

I understand that from the perspective of somebody living in a country where Facebook has all sorts of relevance/influence on people's daily lives (and certainly more than any company should ever have), this "abuse" of their precious products/services may be a serious thing.

However, I have seen other countries where many have already all but ditched Facebook (often after having been bombarded with local BS), or just never let it become a significant factor in their lives in the first place.

The problems these comprised accounts pose is mostly (if not only) a problem for Facebook itself. Facebook wants to sell the idea that a user account reveals information about the person operating that account. However, these user may have no interest in playing along with Facebook's wish to sell that information. They found a different use for Facebook's services. One that serves them better than Facebook's original intended.

It should also be noted that blatant disinformation, especially from governments, is very common in South America (and plenty of other places too). Many (maybe even most) locals grow up with it and are aware that nothing is as it appears. Especially when power is at play. It's probably more remarkable how naive people in the USA and EU still are , when it comes to their propaganda (be that state or commercially driven). Probably because their propaganda has been more subtle and less obviously in-your-face unbelievable. Either way, the way locals may look at propaganda and misinformation (or even their participation in it) may be very different from how people in the USA (or working at Facebook) look at it.

This sounds pretty much like straight up extortion to me. Threatening with abuse of the legal system (that is what this is, because those argument won't survive actual scrutiny) by someone with deep pockets, towards someone who clearly without those, is a serious criminal offence in my book. I mean literally criminal, not just morally or as a matter of speech. This isn't "just" bullying and this CEO does not deserve to walk away from this without damage. As far as I'm concerned, the only place this guy belongs is behind bars.

The problem with taxing revenue instead of profit is that it allegedly would stifle reinvestment. Whether that's actually true or just convenient storytelling (like e.g. with trickle down and patents) is a whole different story.

What you described certainly plays a role too. But it is not what I was pointing at.

What I wrote is no doubt speculative and only meant as contextual background. Still, here we have a country that literally wrote the book on capitalism. Which "just so happens" to be a popular tax haven for big multinational corporations. When in addition to that, the country's IRS has (or at least used to have) a "discretionary authority" to make secret arrangements, I sincerely wonder how much faith it takes to hold on to the idea that their role as a tax haven is just an inherent consequence of how profit tax works (or how companies can be creative with their bookkeeping).

The Dutch generally have a good reputation, but a lot of that might have more to do with their wealth (for those who own it, because over 1/3 of the country's population actually balances around the poverty line), clever PR and keeping the doors to their kitchen firmly shut. Strictly in accordance with their laws, of course.

There are certainly special features that make the Netherlands attractive for foreign multinationals.

The Dutch government has, for a long time, actively presented itself (euphemistically) as a great place for foreign business. They of course would not openly advertise that as a tax avoidance opportunity, but you do the match.

While I'm not sure if this still happens today, the Dutch IRS used to have "special arrangements" with many big companies, for which the details were notoriously never made public. I believe this mostly applied to companies with a physical presence within the country (therefore also impacting the local society and economy and used as rhetorical justification for these deals). Still, since these deals where made behind closed doors, who knows what they may have arranged with foreign multinationals.

The problem with having any confidential deals, is that it becomes impossible to know what goes on as a whole (until a whistle-blower may steps forward). It doesn't mean there is any conspiracy going on, just that it becomes impossible (or at least really hard) to rule it out. History does have something to teach about what usually happens when opportunities for abuse are readily available, without much public scrutiny.

To drive this point a little further: Dutch citizens were relatively recently confronted with how their IRS turned out to not be quite the impeccable (or even legally operating) agency it is supposed to be. With that in mind, only God (and the IRS itself) knows what the agency exactly does with multinational corporation. I'd say they certainly lost the benefit of a doubt by now.

No matter what one may think/feel of this policy, if immigration detained these people and denied them contact with their embassy, than that is a very serious violation.

Not that I'm really surprised though. This kind of lawless (and borderline fascist) "might makes right" behavior appears increasingly popular/prolific within the UK government.

I'd suggest UK tourists spend their holidays within country borders from now on, for any of the involved countries (assuming there is indeed a pattern here, as suggested in the article) may decide to reciprocally harass or shake down UK tourist on their next visit to a warm beach. What comes around goes around.

Aside from profiling, can these custom URL handlers also be used as an attack vector on other installed applications?

That is, assuming any of those happens to be installed and have a (input sanitation related) vulnerability.

Maybe I'm just seeing ghosts here. But the idea of a web site pushing malicious links to whatever software may also be installed on the same machine, isn't a very comforting thought.

Ventoy is indeed one of the best (if not THE best) tool for this. Even if it does not support absolutely everything (last time I checked), it is by far the most hassle free and sure-fire solution.

For context, I have professionally deployed Linux on USB, ever since around 2004. I honestly don't care to remember all the odd issues/failures I've encountered during those 17 years. The situation certainly got better/easier with the years, but it can still be a gamble if an odd Linux distro will actually boot successfully from USB or not.

Until I discovered Ventoy, about a year or two ago, I would always be hesitant to recommend running Linux from USB, unless I knew the exact setup (or it involved someone with a decent technical skills).

Ventoy is great!!! I'd recommend everyone to at least have a look at it. It's one of the very few tools I endorse without any hesitation or reservation.

I am in no way personally involved with Ventoy, nor do I have a stake in it. I just love the tool for what it is.

To be clear, I have never said that freelancers should not pay tax, nor that they are some magical fairies. In fact, I think that they should have registered as self-employed entities and pay tax accordingly.

Why do you expect (or even insinuate) that I don't know that all countries tax income on residents working there? Of course they do. It actually is a bit more complicated than that, but never mind.

For freelancers (or as a small self-employed entities, which is how freelancers often are legalized), tax usually does not amount up to nearly half of their income. For regular employees this isn't all that unusual, but there are clear distinctions between employment and freelancing.

I find it hard to believe that a Serbian company would pay employment tax if they hire a freelancer, as you claim. Are you really sure about that?

Hiring a freelancer usually means that it is essentially a business-to-business relationship, leaving things like tax, insurance, pension, etc up to the freelancer to take care of. Failing to do that is of course a violation of the tax code, but it doesn't make somebody an employee all of a sudden. I don't think a business is even legally allowed to contract a freelancer unless that person has some kind of legal registration for that. So it would not just be the freelancer that is in violation, but probably also the business contracting them (it could even be an economical crime, for the unfair competitive advantage it might provide).

I guess that the crux here is that the Serbian government decided that anyone who didn't register themselves as a legitimate freelancer (agency, in your words), yet still received income from abroad, will now be treated as if this income was from employment.

Of course these people should pay tax, no doubt about that. But, unless these people are really actual employees and not freelancers (even if they failed to register appropriately), I don't see why they should (or even can) be charged as if they are employees. Other than "might makes right" and "just because we say so".

If all these people calling themselves freelancers are in fact legitimate employees working somewhere abroad, then I completely agree with your logic. However, if that's the case, then there is another snag. The various tax treaties between those countries and Serbia usually dictate that tax will only be charged in one of the involved countries, and usually in the country of employment. But, I'm pretty sure that those foreign companies in most cases did not treat these people as employees (because they'd pay far more) and instead treated them as freelancers. So this likely a moot point.

Maybe I'm still seeing this all wrong, but to me it appears that the government is conveniently classifying these people as regular employees, just because that happens to be a group/classification for which they can charge the highest amount of tax.

For me it is really odd that a freelancer (legal or illegal) can somehow become a regular employee when they fail to register. If anything, I would expect that they be people who have illegal been operating as an business entity. Dealing with that is whole different matter. Potentially dragging in criminal justice and not just tax code. I suspect the government would quickly shoot itself in the foot with that, so maybe that is why they are taking this route instead?

I believe I understood everything you wrote and don't disagree with it (besides what you wrote about a company hiring a freelancer). However, I really don't get how employment and freelancing can somehow be bunched up as if they are the same. But that is what I get from your story and the media. For a company contracting any work force, be that employees or freelancers, it certainly never is.