In a way it almost seems good? It seems like opportunistic capital that takes flight so easily probably wasn't seriously integrated into the local economy anyway.
Rather, what we know is that there are idiots in Norwegian politics who didn't see this coming because they don't understand basic economics, psychology, and second-plus order effects of changes to complex systems.
They tried to pull a magic lever to get more money and ended up with a big loss, which was predictable.
When you go after people's money or stuff, they fucking take evasive action! Literally everyone!
- toddler having their toy taken away by another toddler;
- homeless dude under the bridge having something taken from his tent;
- international billionaire playboy being taxed extra.
Wealthy people enjoy something called mobility. They have options. They can move wealth, as well as themselves, around the globe. Catching the poor is like fishing for eel with oiled hands.
If you're a government and want to squeeze people for money and have them be not able to do anything about it, you have to pick on the struggling working class.
The article is misleading, and well propaganda. The official national statistical institute of Norway tracks wealth tax revenues per year. From 2022 to 2023, revenues moderately increased from around NOK 26 billion to NOK 29 billion.
If we cannot tax the money before it accumulates too high, there is little hope getting it afterwards. But taxing it too early penalise entrepreneurship.
Tax large properties and excessive luxury seems like one of the few methods could work, but it doesn't have the same reach.
The goal of an HELLO WORLD is not to show it's printed, but the process of what everything is need to print HELLO WORLD. Every step, and every word and concept needs to be explained.
Therefore this article is not a proper HELLO WORLD exemple.
Usually it goes something like this, for example HTML:
<!doctype html>
<html>
<body>HELLO WORLD</body>
</html>
Then you explain what a tag is, why they need closing or not, what the body is, etc. This is a basic HELLO WORLD example. If I dumped the above code and says done, that will be useless to anybody.
From the protocol the community and organization needs to be defined by the source of the information. If not, then it cannot be shared without request from the source. They even have example for those situations.
Since you’re being abstruse, consider information by definition is in possession by an entity (or rephrased a property of a system). For that information to move the system needs to be brought into contact with another system, and it is the nature of this contact that is being policed. If information doesn’t have an ambient system that is discernible then there is no distinction to be made if its sensitivity—it may as well be noise.
In practice, "organization" usually means your company or business. "The community" usually means an Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC) aka a group of similar orgs that share information with each other; think financial services companies in the US, or energy companies in Japan.
Okay, maybe I'm just not the target audience for this. I didn't know what an ISAC was, but I've seen plenty of TLP markers on open source disclosures where it was exceedingly unclear what a "community" meant w/r/t appropriate sharing.
If you see something publicly it's TLP:White (or clear, since it was changed for weird readons) by definition. But yeah it's a term specific to it security, where it's usually well understood what TLP:Amber and TLP:Red means. I agree TLP:Green is a bit more fuzzy, and the intention is often basically "share with trusted parties but don't post publicly".
I think it's awesome.
I have way to many chargers, specially USB-C, 5, 10, 20, 35, 70, and 95W all over the house and office.
If you need one, just shell the extra $100 that corresponds to your needs.
And who runs the EU? The MEPs and members of the countries government.
It's not like it's a different country imposing their way onto us. Talk/contacts your ministers and MEPs if you want your voice to be represented.
Right, because a commission that keeps bringing legislation to a vote until one of those two vote pools gets a majority, despite the law being against my government's constitution (in strong terms), and me having no way to stop it if all representatives of my country voted against, is totally not the EU imposing its way on my country.
I did send hand-written mails to several German representatives, and this is how I was rewarded.
Obviously I'm not expecting that my actions alone are enough to get the outcome I want, but it's difficult not to feel the bite of "if voting changed anything, they would make it illegal." It's just going to be some other paid-for dickface in corporate pockets, every time.
The problem is the indirection. Only the European Commission can propose legislation [1], so the legislative direction of the EU is entirely determined by them - MEPs can only slow it down.
And citizens don't vote for the Commission directly, meaning there's a lot of backroom dealing in its selection.
[1] Which also covers, I think, the act of repealing prior legislation.
This law proposal is explicitly against the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the allegedly institutions that are supposed to upheld the charter are CJEU, European Commission, FRA, NHRIs, where are they?
I'm pretty sure that if this passes, the EU Court of Justice will eventually find it more or less in violation with EU fundamental rights.
That will take time, though, so I guess they are either hoping that some impossibly secure, reliable and unerring technologies emerge in the meantime, or they are prepared for a forever battle with the Court, coming up with ever new adjustments as soon as previous schemes get struck down[1], meanwhile allowing European law enforcement agencies to keep testing, developing and iterating on whatever client-side scanning or other techno-legal approaches they may come up with. I think this was roughly what they — ie, basically a group of a dozen or two law enforcement reps from different member states agencies and ministries along with like one lonely independent information security expert — said themselves in some working group report as part of some kind of Commission roadmap thing presented by von der Leyen not too long ago.
[1] On the data protection side we've already seen this kind of perpetual movement through the years with respect to different “safeguarding” mechanisms made available to enable transfers of personal data to the US without too much hassle, from Safe Harbor through Privacy Shield to the current Data Privacy Framework.
I've looked at the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and don't see why this would violate it.
Both the right to privacy and the right to protection of personal data have exemptions for government. The right to private communications was modified by the ECHR to give an exemption for prevention of crime/protection of morals/etc.[1] and the right to protection of personal data exempts any legitimate basis laid down by law[2].
If you don't see it, it doesn't mean that it is not braking it.
They themselves even wrote it in the proposal - "Whilst different in nature and generally speaking less intrusive, the newly created power to issue removal orders in respect of known child sexual abuse material certainly also affects fundamental rights, most notably those of the users concerned relating to freedom of expression and information."
This proposal is de facto a mass communication surveillance of EU citizens.
Exactly as you mentioned every single member state and EU have laws that can for example issues a court order and seize your communication devices if you are braking a law for an investigation, there is no need for EU to have a law that first goes against the very essence of EU, second it also brakes I am pretty sure every single constitution of each different member states.
If this law passes you live in a totalitarian state and there is no excuse for that.
What's the point, then? The purpose of a document defining people's rights is to help ensure that governments don't trample those rights. If the government has explicit carve-outs to violate those rights, then the Charter isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
I'm totally opposed to this law. My comment was about the fact that the EU is imposing their view on EU countries, like we have no say on the matter.
I emailed all my MEPs to oppose this proposal.
>"Talk/contacts your ministers and MEPs if you want your voice to be represented."
And be told to sod off.
From Wikipedia: [0]-"Currently, there is one member per member state, but members are bound by their oath of office to represent the general interest of the EU as a whole rather than their home state."
How difficult is it to run? How much money do you need? What are the barriers to success? Is it set up so that only the already rich and powerful can run and win (and therefore they are just pushing their own interests), and if not do you need considerable financial support (and therefore are beholden to the already rich and powerful who funded your campaign)?
There are people with no backing, not even existing parties, that get elected as EU representatives. So its not that difficult to run if you have a platform some people care about.
It is much easier to break into EU than the local governments, since EU has so much less power, so you have more weird people there.
Or maybe... FastMail created JMAP, ergo they are the one with the best implementation.
Now Apple is working on moving iCloud to JMAP, and are working with FastMail as a JMAP production level service within mail.app.
Apple uses a proprietary IMAP extension that, until recently, any developer could use by generating a APNS certificate using a reverse engineered endpoint from macOS Server. They’ve since closed this.
How iOS Mail gets push inbox updates working with third-party IMAP servers is in the public since 2015/2016 if you look hard enough. That has nothing to do with JMAP the protocol inherently.
reply