"The tactic has been criticised by privacy advocates and non-governmental organisations such as NOYB and Wikimedia Europe, which claim that it is illegal under the GDPR. On 17 April 2024, the European Data Protection Board released a non-binding opinion stating that in most cases, consent-or-pay models do not constitute valid consent within the meaning of the GDPR."
I've skimmed through it and it is quite disgusting. It is written in a manner to convince future kladman that "everything gonna be alright if you do it right".
In fact, kladmen are disposable, are easy targets for cops, and get huge sentences.
Also this youtuber[0] is extremely good at visually (and verbally) describing current scholarly understandings of this. Similar (but different) to 3blue1brown in that way.
The problem with all of these is they act as if these works came into being fully formed at time X. Any real solution has to overcome that and start to think as these text are in motion.
That's much more true for the new testament than the old. The main four books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) emerged in such a condensed time frame with such similar structure and content it's very difficult to reason about the genesis of them outside of comparisons to each other. This gets even more complicated when you realize that names are re-used and authors likely intentionally made use of pseudonyms, so it's very hard to draw conclusions of authorship from third-party sources. By the time historians start to mention it Christianity had been wildly popular for centuries.
However, much of the historiography dealing with authorship—including the research done by many distinct churches—absolutely treats them as the product of time and multiple contributors. I think there's a tendency to view the simplest narratives as representative because those are the narratives that tend to propagate the widest and fastest, but it's just not representative of what serious scholars think.
They aren't assuming that, and it's weird that you would claim they are. Where do you get this? Those in the field of textual criticism are well aware of the existence of "variant texts"—those "textual witnesses" (documents) that differ for various reasons from the sources they were copied from.
That seems like the right direction, but even for 20 kg bags I don't know how to evaluate Chinese suppliers of bulk foodstuffs
Are there companies who take care of the sourcing + importing + QA for retail veggie protein brands? Some actor in the supply chain just before flavoring is mixed in
IMO it's better to think of a directory as "containing" only the named references to inodes. Other directories on the same filesystem may contain other named references to the same inodes ("hard links").
The inodes themselves are more like free floating anonymous objects independent of any particular directory, and might not have a named reference at all (O_TMPFILE; or the named reference was deleted but a file descriptor is still open; or orphaned inodes due to filesystem corruption or someone forgetting to fsync the directory after creating a file as masklinn pointed out - e2fsck will link these in /lost+found). This is also why chmod appears to affect other hard links in different directories: Because it actually modifies the inode (file permissions are recorded in that), not the named reference.
This definitely seems like a more meaningful distinction to me. It’s also closer to the mental model I had coming into the discussion, FWIW.
And I think it makes the collection/container terminology distinction sharper too. Depending on context, I think it’s usually reasonable (if imprecise) to describe a bucket of references or pointers to things as a collection of those things. But I don’t think it makes as much sense to call it a container of those things, except in a really abstract sense.
Just how important are the ground stations in Brazil? (I don't mean the end user terminals.)
If Starlink will basically continue to work well enough if those are seized, it seems like the obvious next steps are going to be crypto/stablecoin payments and a focus on small form factor terminals like Starlink Mini that can bypass customs.
And then Starlink users get fined or arrested and Starlink Minis get seized. Also how good does it look for an international company to sell as evading customs and imports taxes.
Crypto and stablecoin don't make the physical reality of owning such a device disappear.
Hilariously, the brazilian military published a report on the impact of Starlink's blocking to their operations. One would think this would get them to fund a proper space program.
This is a path that ends with Starlink being unable to respect the law in other jurisdictions, and getting progressively banned elsewhere, or Musk getting jailed on foreign trips like the Telegram CEO.
There is a reason why legit companies tend to avoid using the same tools and methods as drug cartels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_or_pay