I think so too actually if you’re looking to learn the basics.

Arch has very little actual “distribution” in its system (mostly pacman and mkinitcpio) and the former is a glorified tar with a database, and while it can run scripts, you’re expected to configure and set up everyone yourself using the upstream tools, and these usually come vanilla

I daily drove it for 15 years before I switched so it’s not like Arch is insured for that. But if you want to learn the basics of modern Linux it’s a good choice

Pourover is more work in my opinion, since you usually don’t pour all the water at once, do you

What actually is quite easy is an immersion switch dripper since there, you can just pour it all at once

No store I know about actually uses this on a regular basis, programmable price tags are usually only used to reflect special offers. The only sectors making regular use of dynamic pricing are ticket sales, be it concerts or flights or whatever.

Interesting enough, if you decide to put a price tag on goods (which every store does for obvious reasons) it has to include tax.

Also, the courts view it like this because this is the actual law, not their interpretation.

but surely that is not how a court would view a price tag on a product that is for sale in a store

It is actually exactly how the courts view this

You seem confused. The court did rule in the customer’s favor in the Canadian airline case – and rightfully so. Flix has a popup that attempts to flip such decisions in advance. It remains a question whether that trick would actually work the way Flixbus lawyers hope it will. But they can only do so much.

That’s what I said. A court would rule in the buyer’s favor even under the German system because the bot did not advertise or made a negotiation suggestion, but agreed on a negotiated trade.

Whether that clause Flix uses is enough to rule out such cases remains to be seen I guess.

Suppose I offer you a laptop for €80. You accept.

The actual legal construct is that you offer a notebook and then say “I suggest you offer me 80€ for this laptop”. I do it, but at this point, only I have agreed to the trade. You are still free to decline and ask a higher price.

The chatbot thing is the same. Flix offered a ride through their bot, and the other side offered nothing. Since both agreed, the trade became valid. The court didn’t rule in the customer’s favor because this was unlawfully advertised, but because both parties agreed to a trade they negotiated.

There is a law against misleading advertisement regarding price ( UWG §5 2 Section 2) but that law requires intent, it doesn’t apply on case of honest mistakes. Also this was about the price tag in stores, not advertisements

I guess that depends on local law, pretty sure here in Germany, pricing mistakes are nothing the seller must honor, you as the customer are free not to buy. https://www.focus.de/immobilien/wohnen/falsche-preisauszeichnung-muessen-sie-trotzdem-den-richtigen-preis-zahlen_a0f9868d-30c0-45f0-b25e-27893a11b914.html it’s called invitatio ad offerendum, the legal procedure is that the buyer proposed a price at checkout and the seller agrees or doesn’t, in practice this is never done but there was actually a ruling some years ago that due to this, the buyer is free to haggle at checkout. All prices in the store are just a suggestion by the merchant to the buyer as to which price he should suggest at checkout, but again he’s not obligated to take that offer.

Oh I read db as decibel for whatever reason and was thinking this was about transmission power etc lmao

Price is determined at checkout, no? What would this achieve

Technically, the question was even easier (yes/no), but I agree with the sentiment

Well, but the question wasn’t “what is a hash used for”, but rather “what is a hash”

Keep in mind this is a statement by a manufacturer who’s trying to get his customers to sign long term contracts at current prices, so it’s in their interest to have people believe that the shortage continues.

Doesn’t mean it’s not possible, bit it should be read in that context

Humans are animals as well

Posting an AI outline (or part of an article written by AI, I didn’t click the link after the summary) in fuck_ai is somewhat ironic

Often times when there was a big new update for GNOME, I’d try it out, decide I still don’t like the concept and go back to plasma.

I don’t get the appeal of that desktop. Even the tiniest changes need gnome-tweaks? Why isn’t that stuff part of the base settings? But ok. You can’t ungimp GNOME. The usage concept is baked into it. Fine. But why?

I mean there must be people who want this and nothing else, otherwise people wouldn’t use it.

These protections work at different layers and hence, you use both.

First off, you can’t really encrypt the first boot loader by design, your UEFI needs something it can read and run. You need to protect this first boot stage somehow, and this is what Secure Boot is for; it verifies the signature of the payload it starts to protect it against tampering.

1. The spec allows changing keys by the user as far as I know
2. I’m unaware of a proposal of a better concept that stops attacks at this layer

I think once you’re at the level of caring about that stuff you’re no longer considered a newbie

Introducing the dummy thiccpad

I will roll into my grave