True, but legal precedents can be nuanced
For example, that whole litmus test with the three questions to determine if something is art or pornographic or obscene was borne out of a legal precedent.
So something similar could come out of this, where it’s only applicable if the company in question is X market cap and controlling Y percentage of the market segment or whatever. It doesn’t have to nor should be an all or nothing kinda thing
Insurance Companies: What do you mean “ancient times”??
Can confirm, I just pulled up Epic Games Store from within the MS Store lol
And on top of that, this isn’t some startup who has to depend on every dollar, even if you’re right @[email protected] this is fucking Google with a 2 TRILLION DOLLAR market cap they can lose some revenue to make room for some competition even if it’s a tad unfair.
That’s just the perception with the average person, not that they would actually do it
Yes but only through sideloading, this order requires Google to allow third-party app stores to be distributed from within Play Store, i.e. you can search for “F-Droid” from directly within Play Store and install it.
Which also comes with a bit of a positive reputation to truly allow a competitor to rise. Before, non-technical people (read:the average person) saw sideloading as dangerous because of “viruses”, which led to low uptake of Epics own store (Which they did try to distribute through sideloading)
Now if an average person sees F-Droid or other app store in the play store they’re automatically going to think “It’s in the Play Store and vetted by Google so it MUST be safe to check out”
Yea that’s exactly it, no more side loading needed.
Apple got away with it because they were VERY careful to go up to the line without crossing it as well as careful wording of things, unfortunately.
team found CBD
Meh, someone call me when it’s THC lmao
It’s pretty simple really
Detective: “Excuse me, I’m Detective so-so, recently we’ve come into some information that indicates something traumatic may have occurred in your past, are you ready to hear the details or would you like some time to prepare?”
Person: “WHAT‽ I’m gonna need some time to prepare, I’ll contact you when I’m ready”
This’ll give those vulnerable time to prepare for a shit storm and those who feel they’ve already adjusted and would rather not hear about it the opportunity to decline
Your attitude is very much “You need to hear about it no matter what or how well adjusted you are. Oh, your brain was able to process the incident without causing any I’ll effect? WELL TOO BAD YOU NEED TO HEAR IT”
Again, not every traumatic incident results in a mental ill effect like PTSD or depression. Some people have more resilient mental stability than others. What of them? What if the disclosure itself is just too much and now they NEED therapy when they could have gone their entire life without worry?
I don’t think you read the second half of my original comment
There’s no good answer on this, maybe some sort of initial generic question like “Something bad has happened to you in your past you maybe unaware of, would you like details?”
It would still cause one to worry about that something has happened to them, but at least they would have time to figure out their own best way forward before being bombarded with details
Whether to seek therapy or even go on a path to recovery is their choice to make, are you advocating to force people onto a path of recovery‽
It’s true your brain is always processing things, but it’s not guaranteed that it’ll process it into trauma PTSD or another mental health issue. It’s perfectly capable of processing it’s way out of major issues. There are plenty of people who have gone through traumatic things both aware and unaware in which they suffered no I’ll effect. It happens. That bit of the article I quoted is of one such person.
They have to know.
People have an equal right to not want to know something
It’s a good point, if one truly doesn’t know and really is continuing on with life just fine then telling them would I’m effect cause trauma where there was none before
One of the most prolific incidents of unknowing victims in recent years was the case of Reynhard Sinaga, who drugged and raped at least 48 men in Manchester between 2015 and 2017. Almost all the victims had no idea they had been raped until police officers knocked on the door years later.
“It was a moral dilemma,” says Lisa Waters, the former child service manager at St Mary’s sexual assault referral centre, who worked with police on these visits. “You can’t just go in there, tell them what’s happened and drop the bombshell and walk away. You have an obligation to keep people safe.”
Some victims were numb; others were furious. “Why have you told me this?” Waters recalls them asking. “I had no idea that this happened to me. You’ve ruined my life. So why have you told me?” But for other victims, the revelation was a relief.
There’s no good answer on this, maybe some sort of initial generic question like “Something bad has happened to you in your past you maybe unaware of, would you like details?”
It would still cause one to worry about that something has happened to them, but at least they would have time to figure out their own best way forward before being bombarded with details
I mean, it still could, there’s absolutely no way they’re (not for “just” 1.5b anyways) getting online with the rest of the grid in ~30 days
Doesn’t seem to show for business accounts FYI
No one said it wouldn’t be painful lol
Instructions unclear, there is now a banana in my ear.
…I miss old youtube.
means people like trump and Musk are with us forever.
But that would also mean their polar opposites would also be with us forever, the objectively best of us
“Pizza is an open-face sandwich” ~Madlad Lemmyor (lemmyite? Lemm? Lemmor? Just what do we call users of Lemmy anyways???) from a couple weeks ago
Man why’d you have to remind me of that lol, they hyped it up like he was going to be so much more involved and then wasn’t lmao