• 2 Posts
  • 1.3K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 17th, 2023

help-circle

  • TWeaK@lemm.eetoxkcd@lemmy.worldxkcd #2992: UK Coal
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Except that the UK taxed all its locally produced coal so much that it was cheaper to import more dirty coal from China than use fresh, relatively clean coal excavated from Wales. If a power station wanted to use Chinese coal, they only had to pay import duty. But if they wanted to use cleaner Welsh coal they had to pay taxes on the extraction, refinement and then the same export tax they levied everywhere else. Welsh coal was some of the highest quality in the world, but it was exported and more toxic stuff burned locally because that was more profitable.







  • What are your plans when end of life /support comes to Windows ten?

    Switch to Linux and run virtual machines when I need to use Windows.

    Right now I don’t quite have the drive to do it, but an end to support for Windows 10 would push me over the edge. I just can’t stand Windows 11, not even because of all the bullshit but just the way it mandates the UI structure - last time I tried it my dealbreaker was that you can’t just have it always display all taskbar icons, you have to manually force each one to show. If a new icon comes up, it will be hidden.













  • It looks like you haven’t really digested anything of the conversation here before you came in to reply with corrections.

    Not everywhere.

    Previous rulings are a precedent in Common Law systems like the US, UK, Canada, or Australia.

    Only Supreme Court rulings become a precedent in Civil Law systems like the EU, Russia,most of the rest of America.

    Sure, but we’re talking about Brazil. You haven’t established whether Brazil is common or civil law. Also, we’re talking about a Supreme Court ruling.

    Not all of the EU is civil law. Ireland and Cyprus both use common law systems.

    While common law countries often have roots connected with the UK and are very similar, civil law countries are far more varied. Many civil law countries are distinctly different and arguably should be a separate class of legal structure - even ones with French roots (perhaps the most prominent civil law country).

    Ultimately, though, the differences between civil and common law structures are almost entirely technical in nature. The end result is largely the same - in a common law country, case law can continue to be challenged until a Supreme Court ruling, and as such it isn’t really proper case law until such a ruling, just like in civil law countries.

    https://guides.library.harvard.edu/law/brazil

    Brazil is, in fact, a civil law country. However, they do follow case law from Supreme Court, which would make this ruling about requiring a representative valid case law. Which is what I said to OP.

    The EU at its top level creates “Directives”

    This is exactly what I said.

    The EU made GDPR law (well, strictly speaking they made a directive, then member states make laws that must meet or exceed that directive)

    The EU made a directive, this directive led to GDPR laws made by member states. However I was apparently mistaken, it wasn’t an EU Tribunal court case that led to cookie splash screens through case law, it was Recital 66 (lol Order 66), essentially a 2009 modification to the 2002 ePrivacy Directive, followed by roundtable discussions that heavily favoured the advertising industry over civil interest groups leading to its formal implementation into the directive in 2012.

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/truth-behind-cookie-banners-alexander-hanff-cipp-e-cipt-fip-

    To summarise:

    • What I said at the start was right - Brazil’s Supreme Court ruling requiring social media companies to have representatives is valid case law.
    • My example of cookie splash screens wasn’t ideal, but you did not give the right reasoning, or any reasoning - it was a poor analogy because it wasn’t a judge’s rulinig that modified the law but legal discussions that were prompted by public interest groups.

    Like I say, it really feels like you didn’t read very far before you made your reply. Your comment reads more as a statement of tangentially related things you know with a thin veil disguising it as a correction. If you’d just made those statements without the veil, or if you’d followed through with the corrections and actually explained what was wrong, I don’t think I would have found your reply so objectionable (although I may also have woken up on the wrong side of the bed to your comment, sorry about that).

    But then, I also wouldn’t have looked into the specifics of Brazilian law or the full origins of cookie splash screens, so thanks for the motivation lol.