I mean "America deserved it" and "those kids didn't deserve it" and "the people who did it are evil" are all statements that can be true. There is no logical incompatibility there.
If a person blows up a building full of people and one of them was a serial killer, it's very reasonable to believe "this was a bad act and most of these people didn't deserve it" and "that one guy definitely did deserve it" at the same time.
He is a fool, and chess is a difficult game, but the reason you've cited here is also true for Go Fish.
For those not prepared to replace their OS, I've been enjoying this project the last couple weeks.
IIRC that same crisis also spurred funding for some of the key initial research that eventually culminated in lithium ion batteries. Considering the various stops and starts in that timeline, battery tech could easily be a decade or two behind where it currently is if not for the oil crisis.
The price might not be worth it, but would be really funny if Valve just delisted the claimed games in the UK and notified the publishers that they need to remove the claimed music or resolve the licensing issue if they want their game back up. Instead of one tidy lawsuit, suddenly these guys are being contacted by the angry lawyers of hundreds of orgs they have existing contracts with.
A lot of the hate in this thread seems unfounded. While this video touches on some things that the community is insecure about, I think it does a good job of providing relevant and true facts that someone considering the switch should know:
For someone not sure which distro to choose, they get:
For someone wondering about game compatibility, they learn:
For someone who has used Linux on servers at work, but hasn't tried it as a primary desktop they learn:
For someone who has never used Linux at all they learn:
All of this information is valuable, relevant, true, and important for someone to be aware of before they dive in. I say all this as a gamer that's been playing exclusively on Linux for over a year now. It is not an experience without friction, to me that friction is worth it. If someone else doesn't think it's worth it, I'd rather they not switch right now, rather than switch and have a bad time. Maybe in a couple years Valve will be able to reduce the friction in the broader ecosystem the way they did on the deck. Until then it's better not to bring people in that are going to be unhappy with the current state.
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.
I never claimed he said those additional things. You're the one putting words in his mouth by claiming that he was saying the kids deserved it or that the perpetrators were the good guys. "America deserved X" does not mean "the children involved deserved X" and it does not even mean "the people who did X did a good thing". It means only "America deserved X".