Jajcus

We have the same about a shit whip – „z gówna bata nie ukręcisz”

In Poland it is „nosić drewno do lasu” (bring wood to the forest). Similar, but a bit different (pointless not just by being pointless, but by being impossible): „nie zawrócisz kijem Wisły” – ‘you won’t turn Vistula (our biggest river) with a stick’.

Non-toxic glue would be starch or gelatine - both used as base of some ‘real glues’, both with valid culinary use, including exactly this use case. We just don’t call those ‘glue’ in this context.

Those would be different kind of regulations. Not just ‘you need functioning brakes’ kind, but also ‘you must serve this route that hardly anyone uses and and you cannot make any extra money from’. Or ‘no extra fees, even where some people would pay them’.

If that means proper regulations (as it should) I bet they would hate it.

And that is the problem with this idea.

Subscription to a software is not mutually exclusive with self-hosting. Developers deserve to earn money, especially those who do not rely on collecting data, showing ads and enshittification of their cloud platform.

Didn’t they just move the code that was previously executed in the proprietary kernel module to the new also proprietary userspace driver

Probably. And that is exactly what was expected from them since the beginning of their Linux drivers. Kernel is not a place for such big and proprietary piece of code. So this is the important change.

Yes, the driver is still proprietary, but it does not break the kernel any more the way it did.

But this is the part where being open source is most important. For security, maintainability and convenience reasons

One could even argue if the usespace part, the OpenGl or Vulkan implementation, is still ‘a driver’. (I think it is, at least partially)

Also not a fan of #16 since it sounds to me like forced labour for the poor

That is how actually that worked in some (if not all) communist countries. No unemployment, but people (mostly those ‘undesirable’ for various reasons) would be sent to hard work in bad conditions, which would often cost their health or life. The other side of the coin was: everybody had a job and little fear of losing it, so people rarely treated the work seriously enough. There were factories full of workers, but so inefficient, that nothing was produced in sufficient demand. People had money, but little to buy with it.

‘Pay to show a link’ is the way Google wants us to see this legislation. But linki are not what the news sources are fighting. The problem is Google presents the news and other information in the search result in the way that users often do not need to leave Google and foll9w the link.
Someone produces content so people visit their się and make them money, but those users get the information they want (sometimes incomplete or broken) straight from Google and only Google gets the money. That is not fair and that is what laws like this try to fix (better or worse). But Google and such have powerful propaganda and here we are.

Another thing is: users of services like Reddit or Lemmy also do similar thing (posting content in a way that preventing monetization at its source), so they have extra reason to take Google side.

I joined a local maker space and met great people, sharing similar interests. Surprisingly (to me when I joined) most seem to be over 40, like me, and there are as many women as men here.

URLs are definitely encrypted. What can be sent unencrypted are domain names and IP addresses. Which is not a problem when the host name is ‘youtube.com’, but is a bigger problem if it is ‘the-terrorists.com’.

They do and make reliability even worse.

Because 3.5mm jacks suck. 6.3mm jacks are much more sturdy and can be easily mounted on 6mm or even thicker cable, which can also handle much more use.

Flimsy jack and thin cheap cable cable is asking for trouble during performance.

The only plus of 3.5mm and smaller ‘phone jacks’ is their size and in many applications it is much less important than reliability.

What is more interesting, Google came as a more friendly alternative, with drastically less ads than Alta Vista and other search engines of that time had. Today’s Google is only just approaching now the amount of ads on the search results page that those had. It is just a bit smarter about mixing ads with actual search results and the ads are more targeted (which is not necessarily a good thing).

Still, there is place for competition, people just need to stop expecting these services to be completely free of charge. When Google ‘fees’ (data collection and ads) will stop being hidden or easily avoidable other companies will be able to provide similar services for a fair price.

But is it a clickbait in this case? The title is exactly the question the article thoroughly answers.

That is not true. Not fully true, and the true part is blown out of proportion by various populists (especially right-wing, who would like to replace what we have with USA model or worse).

Most basic health care is organized by the government and paid through taxes and social insurance (which is obligatory). Unfortunately it is not financed enough and it shows, more in some areas and less in others. GP access is quite good, especially in larger cities, unless someone didn’t care to choose his ‘first contact clinic’ right. Those clinics are mostly private, but working on government contract. One can usually get a GP appointment within a week, often same day. Urgent GP appointments are available 24/7 through special ‘holiday and night health care points’.

Things became worse when popular specialist help is needed. One needs a referral from his GP and may need to wait months for appointment. There is the point were people who can afford that, would often go private. That and dentists / orthodontist.

Big problems are in children psychiatry, mostly due to lack of funding.

Medicines are much cheaper that in USA. When prescribed by a doctor they are usually partially or even, in some specific cases, fully paid by government. That is not make it affordable for everyone that needs it, but it is not very bad.

When something very bad happens – serious accident, cancer, etc. then the public health care gives the most. Public hospitals will do what they can (with limited funding and overworked personnel) for free. People are not sent away because they are poor and won’t have huge debt to pay just because they got sick.

There are private insurances, or rather subscriptions services. They used to give better access to basic health care that the public services, but recently they don’t offer much more. And you must pay for the public service anyway. They usually totally fail in more serious case (chronic illness, cancer, serious accident) – one would get to and be treated by a public hospital too.

In short:

Pros:

• health care is basically free for everybody by principle
• GP access is good, and serious cases are handled quite well
• medicines are available and prices are not horrendous

Cons:

• not all the free health care is practically available, sometimes available appointments are months or years in the future
• dentists, orthodontists – not really available via public health care and private options are expensive
• doctors, nurses are other personnel are underpaid and overworked
• there is a lot of bad PR around health car here – this doesn’t help improving things

Not that easily and cheaply as they used to be.