davitz

Ah, yes in that case it does indeed seem to suggest that an individual member state would be unable to unilaterally apply a stricter right-to-repair standard than what is specified elsewhere in this law.

While that does take some tools off the table for individual states to strengthen right to repair, the intention here does not seem to be a desire to prevent these measures, but to keep them standardized to keep trade between members smooth. Based on other EU legislation I'm aware of I suspect that the repairability standards they've laid out are far better than what I would find anywhere on my continent, and member states always have the option to work together to further strengthen these provisions across the Union.

IANAL and I haven't dug into the text of the law beyond your quote, but I think the key here is "for reasons of non-compliance with national performance requirements relating to product parameters referred to in Annex I covered by performance requirements included in such delegated acts." To me this is saying "the standards for performance requirements laid out in Annex I override any requirements individual members laws indicate for the same parameters, so those requirements can no longer be used to require products to meet different requirements for these parameters"

So if you are refusing a product from the market for a parameter that is not referred to in Annex I and not a "performance" requirement, then that's theoretically allowed. Depending on the rest of the text, there's a good chance that this leaves room for right-to-repair requirements, unless Annex I already has repairability requirements defined, or unless the law is written to define "performance" in a way that includes repairability.

I think this might work better with 4 frames since 3 of these images show items that fall under the same definition for seal since their purpose is to prevent something from getting into/out of somewhere.

It's the subject of much scholarly debate.

https://youtu.be/L3XnKr0lvDw

"This claim leans heavily into anthropomorphizing non-human things, and that is very rare in rigorous science. Therefore I suspect this is not an accurate representation of rigorous science."

1. Is clear and valid reasoning

2. Is clearly conveyed by the part you mentioned

3. Presents a straightforward reasoning tool people can apply more generally to help them identify cases where scientific results are likely being misrepresented. Exactly the kind of tool that someone can adopt to become better at applying critical thinking in their life.

4. Is much more useful in a broader set of circumstances than the more specific arguments that appear later in the comment to further deconstruct this specific case.

I mean, he's walking through his very solid reasoning for why the headline fails the sniff test, despite being a factoid that is frequently repeated through many channels by many people.

People talk all the time about how we need to strengthen critical thinking skills in the general public. Outside of formal training, this is what that looks like: a culture of publicly explaining the thought process that leads you to question something that many others have accepted without question. The knee jerk reaction of criticizing such statements as rude or overly negative is a big part of why these skills have such a hard time spreading, since people who have the skills feel it's not socially acceptable to share their conclusions.

So the person you first replied to said:

"I'd argue a pedophile ring isn't as important as stopping an environmental collapse or making sure the entire population has access to Healthcare. The irony being the 1% a responsible for all of them"

Again, they don't say that it's a bad thing that this is gaining traction, just that they agree it would be nice if it happened for something more important. They even make a point to note, just as you did in this last message, that many of the same people are behind all of these problems.

And the key thing to note is that they are themselves responding to someone jumping down the throat of the OP which is why I felt it necessary to address the issue from the top since that forms the foundation of everything that followed.

The comment that sparked this line of discussion was:

"I am all for it... but I wish people would get this passionate about healthcare, the environment, education, housing, and all the other things that are suffering in our society."

Not deflection, not discouraging the pursuit of this issue, just wishing for a better world where we could get this kind of traction on issues that actually materially affect most people.

"... expecting them to care about others is a losing game."

Ignoring the fact that many of them are personally impacted by the issues mentioned, I agree, but someone taking a moment to mourn a better world that could have been is pretty normal and human, and just doesn't seem to warrant the backlash in this thread.

I'm glad that the MAGAs finally found something that made them start to question if they're being conned, and I relish seeing so many people pouring gas on that fire. But I also agree that it would have been nice if it could have been something more impactful that sparked that reaction.

Establishing clear priorities doesn't mean that you can only do one thing, it means that if circumstances require you to choose one thing over the other, you have a well reasoned framework to make that decision even if you really want both things.

Also no one was saying, "we need to stop being mad about Epstein so we can focus on healthcare" they were saying "it's a shame that people didn't get as mad about healthcare as they did about Epstein when it's clearly the higher priority problem". It's actually them advocating that we should do more than one thing, and that the fact that we're only doing one thing is made even worse because it's the thing that's lower priority.

Right there with you man, it's hard to imagine that any regular looking white dude in Canada could claim in good faith that they've never been in a conversation where they witnessed a bunch of similar looking dudes go hardcore mask-off because they thought the coast was clear.

Three years? The last time I used pickle was for a school project over a decade ago and even then these vulnerabilities were clearly laid out in the documentation, and it strongly advised against using it for any serious application. The only reason I kept using it in the project is precisely because it was a school project, and I knew the application would never be used in any production context worth attacking. Watching the ML community enthusiastically embrace pickle in the time since has been very amusing to say the least. Honestly I'm surprised it only seems to be catching up to them now.

Or just revise the law to state that international copyrights will only be enforced if they are held by Canadian trading partners in good standing, and that the only prosecutable violations of those copyrights are those which have taken place during the most recent contiguous period that that partner has been in good standing.

That way we don't need to keep updating the law every time a trading partner starts/stops acting up, and other trading partners won't need to worry about impacts to their IP. It will simply be baked in that every time a trading partner unilaterally breaks a trade agreement with us they will in effect be granting amnesty to every Canadian citizen who ever breached their copyright in the past and creating an open season on their IP within Canada until they can reach a new mutually acceptable trade agreement. Honestly this should be a standard practice for many countries.