The user is the end-user of the product. If the relicensing means that someone down the line receives a close-down binary application that he cannot modify, that's a violation of the user's rights.
But it's a non-issue as said user can just have AI reverse engineer said binary. Or reimplement something with the same specs. That's what it means for code to be cheap.
The toolbar has a "Customize toolbar" GUI screen that lets you add, remove and reorder elements. Maybe something similar could be done for context menus, including new entries added by extensions.
Because it comes 'free' with an Office365 subscription. Embrace (<<you are here), extend, extinguish.
It's usually 'management'. The same management that won't pay for developer tools (including Slack) because 'why do you need that when you can do 95% of your work in VSCode?' It's also usually the same sort of management that can do 95% of their documents in... VSCode and markdown. Or LibreOffice.
Having been in the position, on a corporate Active Directory network it very much easier to roll out Teams than anything else. It works fine at the kind of internal video calls that companies spend their days on.
Yeah or 80% even so they can sound cool and quote the pateto principle. Which isn't meant as an excuse to not bother to do the 20% at all but they use it as such.
I don't think M$ does much dogfooding. The kinds of issues I encounter being forced to use their pan-awfuly for work makes me very skeptical of this idea.
… when it works. And if you never have to change camera or microphone settings.
> and calendar integration.
The little notification that pops up telling you your meeting is about to start based on your calendar? The one you better not click in the first 5 or so seconds it's there, because then you'll end up with an error message that tells you absolutely nothing, have to go back to the chat, and try again?
They had a great opportunity to make an ecosystem not dependent on google and apple and they utterly failed. You can't even log into it on the web, you must use the app.
That's for the Wero wallet app specifically, no? I use iDEAL through my bank app and it works great, I'd assume it won't change with Wero since it's basically the same thing
Wero extends iDeal in that it comes with its own app/wallet and user account service. A bit like Paypal.
A step backwards, in my opinion. I'm not sure what this system adds that sharing an IBAN doesn't, but then again Tikkie's conquered that market pretty quickly for some reason as well and each bank has had to copy that feature individually.
My bank app scans Wero QR codes and works fine on a rooted custom ROM, maybe after dismissing a popup about weird software, as long as it's already custom and rooted at the time of setup.
It would be a pain if your bank wouldn't provide direct Wero integration, though.
Anyone can request anything be removed and they may honor the request: https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-request-to-remove-som... they say nothing about only removing things illegal in the US or anything like that, meaning they can and will remove things based on personal judgements about whether it should be archived.
The UK Parliament was by all means a two-party system, with Labour in one side and the Tories in the other. If anything it has become more diverse post-Brexit. Compare that with the Bundestag, where no party has more than a quarter of the seats.
There were 7 major political parties in Germany in 1933, so I’m unsure that there is overwhelming evidence that more than 2 political parties is protective against extremism.
There wasn't 7 major parties. Five maximum, even two could be argued. But '33 Germany is a weak argument against multiparty systems. Interwar Germany was not a well functioning democracy at all. They had armed street fights and deep political chaos going on for over two decades at that point. Hitler didn't have the majority and formed a coalition government. Only because Hindenburg agreed to dissolve the Reichstag could the nazis take power fully.
So the number of parties did actually block Hitler, and Presidential powers to subvert democracy was the problem. In modern multi party democracies an inability to form a government will result in a new election, not installing a dictator.
The Communist Party, the Social Democratic Party, the German Democratic Party, the Center Party, the German People's Party, the German National People's Party, and the Nazi Party.
Germany is the best argument multiple people in this thread made for how a multiparty system prevents the move towards extremism, but we are within living memory of Germany collapsing into what was arguably the worst case of extremism in history.
Of course there were special circumstances at play. Democracies don’t tend to collapse into dictatorship when things are going great. But the multiparty system did nothing to prevent it.
By the time Hindenburg agreed to dissolve the Reichstag, the SA was powerful enough compared to the German Military and he had enough popular support that he could likely have taken power by force.
If a charismatic demagogue gains enough popular support, no constitution, multi party system, or separation of powers etc can stop him.
You could maybe argue that a demagogue is less likely to rise in a multi party system, but I haven’t seen any empirical evidence to support that.
Germany is the best argument multiple people in this thread made for how a multiparty system prevents the move towards extremism, but we are within living memory of Germany collapsing into what was arguably the worst case of extremism in history.
Of course there were special circumstances at play. Democracies don’t tend to collapse into dictatorship when things are going great. But the multiparty system did nothing to prevent it.
If a charismatic demagogue gains enough popular support, no constitution, multi party system, or separation of powers etc can stop him.
You could maybe argue that a demagogue is less likely to rise in a multi party system, but I haven’t seen any empirical evidence to support that.
reply