unwarlikeExtortion

I'd say putting up cameras violates the person's dignity, but knowing how hellish these places can end up I'm not surprised well-meaning people have to do that to protect their loved ones.

Linux definitely has a learning curve but

I'd like to interject here a bit.

For a "normal" user (read non-tech, perhaps even a bit lower on the "tech literacy" scale) any change requires a learning curve. While we Linux people don't have too big of a problem switching distros and UI setups, someone "non-techy" finds the switch from Win7 to Win10 challenging, as well as from Win10 to Win11. We're not in the 95/98 era when a "name" upgrade meant you don't have to install USB drivers off a floppy - the UI stad the same. (which just means Greg won't need to bother with that while he sets up your new computer)

Nowadays, the move from 10 to 11 is anything but "painless" to me - and for me it's just annoyances. For people less tech-savvy it's an enigma at times.

So, my point is - the switch from Win10 to Win11 will probably be worse than Win10 to Mint for old people (mostly). Those deeply rooted into varous ecosystems aren't the focus of this comment.

Is it just me, or do the two thugs look way too much like thugs?

IANAL. Also IDKWYL (I don't know wher you live), but in the sane Western world (the EU), there's no need for a notice in your case - usually it's a good idea to check with the landlords/tenants wether they plan on renewing the lease or not so you both know where the other side is standing.

And, of course, since the contract is time-bound, the assumption is that both possibilities (renewal and no renewal) are on the table, and neither require any side to go out of their way to announce their intent on what happens after the contract expires.

The 'default' option is no renewal - otherwise there is no meaning in making it time-bound and burdening the parties with the need to re-establish a new agreement each contract term. So the need to give a notice of "I plan to do xy after the contract" makes no sense, let alone it carrying contractual punishments.

You weren't required to give a notice. Even if the contract stated so, that clause would most likely get nullified, which I sincerely doubt (again, in most of Europe), since it disproportionally and predatorily benefits one party.

And again, IANAL. You should get one.

But, were I your lawyer (which I most definitely am not), I would scold you for writing the notice in the firdt place since it puts you in a submissive position (your landlord can now claim that by giving notice you "showed" that you "think" you "owe" the landlord notice, ergo you owe them money for the 2 days in May (assuming a 30-day notice), which they conveniently round up to an entire month. I sincerely hope you didn't include explicit (and unnecessary) wording along the lines of THIS IS A 30-DAY NOTICE AS PER $WHATEVER ANNOUNCING OUR INTENTION TO MOVE OUT BY DATE.

Of course, this statement makes no sense. The contract meets its natural end by the date given and that's it. No notices, no payments, no apartment rented out. A renewal requires the good-will of both parties.

My IANAL advice for you going forward is: Stick to the German philosophy - keep things as brief as possible to give the "enemy" less ammo on the one, and to deal with any edge-cases that don't go in your favour.

It's a delicate balance. A fine art, even - the art of writing contracts. And it's hard.

A good contract leaves no room for large gaps in interpretation (loopholes), but allows some flexibility. It also keeps the parties on equal footing (neither subjegated to the others) is in itself a work of fine art.

Bad contracts are (or should be) treated as insults. Shuld the insult be bad enough, ripping the piece of paper conveying the contract out of protest. (Remember - the contract is not the piece of paper, but the words on it and an oral agreement is just as valid as a written contract, but harder to prove - sometimes the legislature decides to nullify all oral contracts for specific "high-impact" things like home sale, but that's another can of worms).

Going forward, do not be afraid to reject contracts and call for a middle ground (suggest amendments) which protect your rights and interests. Not doing it is a terrible idea - the only thing you have to "lose" in such a case is all the obligations that weigh you down from the bad contract.

Germans would actually, I assure you, find it insulting if you just accepted the initial proposal of a contract if it isn't a fixed template given by the Minstries (in that case not amending is acceptable since they strike a good balance, but amending is by no means impossible - these templates are, after all, mere suggestions meant to be acceptable for the majority of uses/circumstances).

Not nealrly as much as electing Musk did. (Since this is just one symptom of it)

Just as believing in a deity gives you a 50% chance of salvation.

It ain't plain if it's with butter

No need to cry!

Let me reiterate it - it's not inherently a bad idea.

The wheat tax wasn't inherently bad (well, other than taking food from the already-starving population, but that isn't the problem of the way the tax inherently works, but of how it is used): the main problem was: it was too successfull. The wheat tax was meant to provide the Church with bread. The church took 10% of every household's grown wheat and they got way too much, so the wheat spoiled. Then they switched to a monetary tax, since money doesn't spoil as easily, and they could use it for more stuff than just baking bread.

These two reasons are why the tax isn't used anymore. But, again, it's not inherently a bad idea.

This model can easily be adapted to work properly. Medical procedures aren't things that "spoil", and there's steady demand for them. It could also work for stuff like housing (anyone building a hotel or an apartment complex for-profit has to make, say, the same 10% for the government), and even retail (if stores had to give even 1 item for every 100 items sold to a public kithen, the kitchens would be overflowing nationwide).

Honestly, this is the way to go. The capitalists just don't want that. They'll be the first ones to point out how it was a feudal-era tax, how people weren't free, and how it wouldn't work in reality (when itsure as hell would). They'd say it isn't practical: foodstuffs spoil, for example - but we're not living in the Middle ages anymore - we have bookkeeping, abd the government could decide to "take" their "fair share" to the kitchen when the demand, well, demands.

The first option is very close to this, but the money is a problem. Once we achieve a near-moneyless, near-classless society where inflation isn't a concern, even that model would work. But, for now we'll have to stick to this, sincethis is implementable in the current society.

That's still a lot.

1. They know what videos you click (obviously)

2. They know when you click them

3. They know how much you watch each of the videos

4. They know how many times you click on the videos

5. Depending on the platform/client/browser/search engine implementation, they see what videos are shown to you before you click on them (thumbnail gets fetched, autoplay, pre-loading, etc.)

6. If someone sent you the link, they most likely know who's sent you the link (through a reference ID)

7. The person who's sent you this is probably logged in, so they know them by name, DoB, interests, etc. From here on out they can guess your own membership of certain statistical cohortsa bit better then through yourown clickinglinks alone.

And a host of other things - where you're located (IP address), what type of connection you're on (IP address + bandwidth), what type of device, what browser/client, etc.

This is just of the top of my head.

Don't mean to scare anyone with this, but it is inherently spooky at the very least.

Your idea is kind of sound, but it really depends on how you implement the "negative" money.

You can just choose not to pay off the public debt. That will, effectively, make you print infinite money, and we all know how much corpos like to use and very much abuse inflation. Your idea'd fall quick.

An alternative is to charge the provider for the service they're providing, or someone with deep pockets who could. This seems much sounder of a wax to go to me. For example, if someone is building a hotel with 500 rooms, say they have to build an additional 30 apartments meant to house a 4-member family. Or, say you keep the asinine US health insurance system, but for every procedure they charge, they have to make one for free. Who they give it to is chosen by the government. This is effectively a form of "negative" taxation. Shame it's basically a revive of the feudal-era "Wheat tax".

Dark mode can be recreated using extensions, although the colors most likely won't be as legible as "native support".

I don't see why a similar extrnsion couldn't change the timezones of clocks.

Additionally, I don't see why the server should bother with either (pragmatically) - Dark mode is just a CSS switch and timezones could be flagged to be "localized" by the browser. No need for extra bandwidth or computing power on the server end, and the overhead would be very low (a few more lines of CSS sent).

Of course, I know why they bother - Ad networks do a lot more than "just" show ads, and most websites also like to gobble any data they can.

Oh, nicotine is way worse. It may not harm your health directly, but addictiveness is exponentially worse.

Wikipedia: Caffeine - Dependence and Withdrawal: Moderately physical dependence and withdrawal symptoms may occur upon abstinence, with greater than 100 mg caffeine per day, although these symptoms last no longer than a day

Wikipedia: Nicotine withdrawal: Symptoms are usually strongest for the first few days and then dissipate over 2–4 weeks (...) In a minority of smokers, cravings may persist for years.

Edit: Left out the "Caffeine" in "Caffeine - Dependance and Withdrawal"

Edit to add: Caffeine withdrawal causes you to be annoyed for a day. Nicotine causes real, actual cravings (you know you need nicotine, whereas for caffeine you're just generally "moody" - most people don't feel "i need caffeine, now", and even if you do, chances are, if you run out of coffee and can't get it within less than a day, the "craving" just stops).

For some, many of whom I know, quitting nicotine is downright impossible due to the cravings. For quitting, toning down is key. Those that quit either relapse momentarily in times of stress (usually for about a week or so), or complain of very strong cravings every few weeks/months.

Additionally, nicotine isn't the only addictive compound in cigarettes, and from what I've heard, vaping, gum, etc. just isn't it for some - people also get addicted to cigatettes themselves.

Not to mention, vaping causes pneumothorax and all the other alternatives cause some harm as well, although much less than cigarettes proper.