They do better about privacy because they make enough money from their inflated prices and blind brand loyalty where they dont have to become an ad company like google. Google is very good at protecting their users data from third parties, as long as they can still collect all of it.

Apple (currently) doesn’t collect a lot of data which allows them to design products with security as a primary component instead of as an afterthought

GM: it rolls to attack. Oh that’s a 2

Player: PFF easy

GM: for a total of 47, dealing 70 damage and you are grabbed.

GM: for its other 5 attacks …

My favourite is its reflect ability. If the players pull some meta bullshit like dropping tungsten rods from orbit the tarrasque can just play an uno reverso card and nuke the players.

Fines as a percentage of income is a good idea for individuals but I dont think it works for coorperations.

A more reasonable approach is:

• 100% of the money they earned/saved by comiting the crime
• 100% of all damages caused to other people/cost to clean up results of the crime (includes the cost of investigation and prosecution)
• a fine that represents the likelihood of getting caught. (If the crime earns me 1mil, the fine is 50mil but I only have a 1% chance to get caught, statistically I should commit the crime as many times as possible because I will end up wining in the end)
• (optionally) a fine based on the crime. This one might be based on the size of the company. This is the “punishment” part. It probably should be payed by the individuals responsible and not the company.

This third point is the important one. Cooperations comit crimes because they are reasonable monetary investments. If the expected fines are always higher than the expected earnings, crimes become a bad investment.

I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe… Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion… I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain… Time to die you piece of shit!

While I agree on the facts I want to offer a slightly different (possible) conclusion: a organisation like wikileaks needs resources and supporters. If they are targeted by all the “good guy”-countries and the only one willing to support them is “evil guy” Russia, then they are not in a position to resist. They chose to compromise their integrity instead of just not existing.

If the western world wants a whistleblower/leaks organisation that follows journalistic integrity and ethics, they need to fund it even if it leaks their own internal documents.

here is how to opt out.

Proceeds to never say how to opt out

If your train is canceled, your ticket is automatically valid for all other trains going in the same direction (doesnt have to be the same route, as long as it will reasonably take you to your destination) for the whole day.

Depending on how mutch later the next connection arrives, you can get all/parts of your ticket price back.

Dont get me wrong, Tajikistan is a capital D dictatorship. With pictures of the president on every public building and daily propaganda prodcasts from megaphones installed at public squares. Its also not the first time the government banned certain traditions (such as a way to celebrate weddings).

They are banning the symptom instead of the cause. Instead of banning preachers of foreign schools of Islam they are banning something that is central to those preachings.

I agree, banning religious expression is generally a bad thing, I am just happy they are fighting to keep radical Islam out of the country. For reference, Tajiks are the second largest ethnic group in Afghanistan (~25% of the population) so there is bound to be cultural exchange between the countries. a And Tajikistan is very afraid of the Taliban getting any support in Tajikistan. And the first step of that support is through religious radicalization.

Tajik Islam is its own thing. They are (relatively) open and women are frequently seen in public. They can walk around on their own and they dont cover their heads with hijabs or similar. They are also very vary of foreign influences such as Arabic Islam, Turkish Islam and above all Taliban influences. The hijab is a staple in all of these forms of Islam, so banning it is essentialy telling those groups to stop trying to take over Tajik Islam. This is a good thing. It is protecting women from a shift to much more oppressing religious practices.

It doesn’t matter if AI is run on green energy as long as other things are still running on fossil fuels. There is a limit to how fast renewables energy sources are built and if the power consumption of AI eats away all of that growth, then the amount of fossil energy doesn’t change.

All increases in energy consumption are not green because they force something else to run on fossil energy for longer.