That's A/76/460, which the person you're replying to did not mention, and which had the abstains and votes against because of the political context, aka being proposed by russia while they were leading an offensive war under the pretense of denazification. You know that's public information too, right?

This was my experience just setting it up as dualboot and not doing super much with it. Sure I failed installing it a few times but I came out with more understanding of file systems, and in the end the wiki told me everything I needed to know.

Sure, but where's the upside? (ethically, not sure if consuming your own meat could have some sort of weird effect on you, even though afaik the usual cannibalism issues wouldn't apply). If anything it's more ethical to take it from yourself because you consent to it, the farm animal probably doesn't.

Afaik GPL 2 would be stopping google from making android closed source anyway, unless I got something wrong about the license terms. But if anything that supports your argument. The main reason google is generally supportive of open source is that they recognize that they benefit from it. The moment that changes, google will try their best to close off anything it can (granted I don't think it's that likely to change, but they're already abusing their position plenty).

It's insane. Of course we can't just jail a corporation and just shutting them down forcibly would cause more problems than it solves, but really that fine needs to be at least 50 times as high. Probably 100 times. Something that hurts, a lot. Not enough to outright bankrupt them, but enough to do that if it happens again any time soon. Their yearly revenue is 72 billion. This is the equivalent of someone making 50k a year paying a $200 fine for gross negligience that killed people. What the fuck?

Allowing everyone to ping @everyone is asking for it though.

Like english?

The highest GDPR fine was 1.2 billion. As far as I know nothing is stopping the EU from imposing higher and higher fines with continued breach of guidelines there, and I would expect these fair market regulations to work similarly.

Also for reference, that fine was against meta, who had 34 billion in revenue in 2023. So that fine cost them around 3% of their global revenue, which I'm sure is tolerable, but definitely approaching the point of hurting.

I also just don't get the point of censoring. I don't have any particular feelings about the word retarded, but I'm also autistic. Do I get annoyed when people use autistic as an insult (i hope it never reaches actual slur status because I'll never accept it as such), esp for stuff that has nothing to do with ASD symptoms at all? Sure. Does it make it better if someone crosses it out in a screenshot, or censors it in a quote? Lolno.

Usually something in the testing process, or perhaps the testing process itself is lacking. For medical applications it should be pretty rigorous as the consequences if something slips through can be very bad.

If this is a new feature, then every step of the process designed to make sure it works failed. Which those are precisely will depend on the project, it could mean that multiple devs and QA had a look and either missed it or didn't think to test for it. Where I work the developer implementing a feature tests it, then 2 other developers review the code, one of them also tests it, then it goes to dedicated QA who will test it more in depth and also do regression tests (checking that existing functionality still works). The testing QA member also checks with another QA member about anything they may have missed in their test steps. But this can vary heavily, also depending on the general model of development cycle (agile or waterfall) etc - though I'm working on much less critical software, no ones going to get injured even if nothing works correctly.

If the bug was introduced through an update to this or another feature, their regression tests might be lacking.

It's also possible (though imo extremely negligient for such an application) that they don't have dedicated QA in the first place, and even don't require their devs to test comprehensively in place of dedicated QA.

Or, they found the bug, but management didn't want to allocate the resources to fix it.

Imo something like this slipping through shows negligience of some form, it's impossible to guarantee bug-free software, but this is not some obscure, hard to reproduce error.

Going off google the energy required to heat the oceans by 1 degree is approximately 5.4*10^21 kj, or 1389 trillion GWh, or the energy output of over 170 million nuclear power plants over an entire year. Safe to say putting all the server farms in the world in there still isn't going to make a dent.

It might affect local temperature by a relevant amount if there's too many in one spot perhaps, and that could be pretty bad. But generally, saving energy is a good thing.

Ban use in public in general. I don't want to be forced to walk through a cloud of cigarette smoke in front of a train station or waiting at a traffic light any more than in a restaurant. People can do what they want at home but constantly having to deal with drug addicts polluting the air around me shouldn't be accepted.