You say that but the other team went far into your capitol and they looked well nourished enough.

Speedrunning to tyranny… things are moving fast indeed in these days and age…

The fuckers reached Belgium by 2023… Those pests are everywhere and wrecking havoc both in suburbs and rural areas.

Fuck that shit and all the memories of it during my graduate. To some extent I dreaded this more than assembler and cobol.

What would be your preferred approach ? I’m on the implementation side of this in a reasonably large company and so far I found the act to be reasonable. It must rely on some interpretation as every piece of such regulation. Same as GDPR for example and yet it’s a very important progress for EU citizens guarantee wise.

Depends on the dimension used. « Shoulds » are meaningless. Let’s not assume everyone is doing shit work, awareness is getting there and people are getting more capable to correctly classify data. Anyway assuming correct classification there are techniques that changes classification enough to allow exportation of data to shit countries.

There’s plenty of techniques to avoid re-identification… aggregation isn’t the only way. Especially considering that aggregation if using a stupid dimension isn’t helping at all…

It’s never been illegal at all, you’re oversimplifying the issue. Plenty of use cases that can use US clouds. Not all data is PII and plenty of use cases perform fine by anonymising their data. Also EU countries aren’t that better than US when it comes to state issued privacy violations; we just don’t do dragnet bullshit (yet) but plenty of requests are served as requested…

Well it’s been quick to start the limitation of options… not their first rodeo it seems.

I can understand being fine with a nomination that aligns with his personal interests but from there the journey to « party of small people » likely takes a convoluted path.

Depends on the jurisdiction and the case specifics. In europe, under GDPR the consequence we (my employer) are the most terrified about is an injunction to stop any further processing of given data for a purpose that would be deemed illegitimate.

You’re not coming back from that one…

And that would typically be on top of the fine which would be to some extent « cost of doing business » indeed.

They have safari which uses their own engine which makes it competition to the whole disfunctional chrome family and firefox. This is about search engine, not web browser though…

Sounds very US… I had to take some info on the topic here in europe and it appears that there’s a very much unalienable right for kids (and next of kin) to a fair distribution.

One can literally not change the part of the patrimony going to a child (without resorting to very complex arrangements that seemingly won’t be accepted by a judge should shit hits the fan).

Even though, for example, one learns he did not father a child -still cannot change the percentage. Tough luck for the other children, the wife…

Everyone has a right to be protected here. In the grand scheme of things it’s for the best.

And yeah, ethics is the basis for this simply you have to assume the position of the weakest one involved and not from the perspective of the one with the money ;-)

Like with all emerging technologies let’s wait for jurisprudence on those… though in europe we generally frown upon anything firearms I guess there will be some interesting evolutions with drones.

As platforms they open too many possibilities and a rather constraining framework is already preventing their operation unless you have a license… which could become more of an access barrier if abuses become more prevalent.

Anecdotally I have seen first hand in 2 occasions unlicensed operators getting caught and largely fined; which was in the end more expensive that having the little drone shot.

Anyway having references that broadly seem to offer protection to drone operators isn’t necessarily a good news even where gun maniacs aren’t plentiful.

You’re not fucking Gandalf, stop answering questions by more questions.

Good to know and very unfortunate that it’s labelled as such by op… sooooo in the end we don’t care about TFA?

This; « complies with most of the current human health guideline values set by various authorities in the EU, even with a high daily consumption of 2 litres » for someone not professionally involved means « is ok ». The authorities in the EU literally say « it complies ».

There are additional limits but from what I can read those re precautions not necessarily coming from health guidelines but from other sciences. Most likely very welcomed precautions though but it still says « complies today ».

Also you are avoiding my main concern which is « then what should I do? ».

We can play semantics the whole afternoon and in the end I agree with the idea that unwanted chemicals must be removed from my food & drinks; but then what? We stop drinking ?

Still, from the article; « Additionally, mineral water is less contaminated with TFA than tap water on average. »

Sooooo… maybe it is more regulated but tests seems to indicate that it’s still more contaminated -in general.

Nope, nothing of the sort. I’m just wondering why the tone of the message from the guardian isn’t in line with the source it cites. They literally say « is ok » so what should be the take away?

Limits are too loose? If so what are good limits to look for? Is it a call to drop bottled water? But then what about city water which isn’t measured as far as I can read; is it better? (I doubt given late incidents in Belgium where water tables were contaminated by local industries).

So what can I do? I’m growing incredibly tired of drama for which nothing can be done at my level.

Taken from like the 3 rd link in the guardian article and it leads to this page; https://www.pan-europe.info/resources/briefings/2024/12/tfa-‘forever-chemical’-european-mineral-waters?utm_source=Laposta&utm_campaign=Press+Release+32&utm_medium=email