baguette

They also take in consideration whether the chips can be produced with fairly paid labour (to a certain level). I believe they have once stated that this was an important reason not to use some chips.

It didn’t really start recently. The openness about it, sure. The constant effort in malicious compliance with open standards, new regulations, and consumer lock-in are derived from greed and are not new.

Apple have had some of the best technologist and designers, but for sure have had the best marketers. I doubt they’ll manage to keep everyone on board on this new low, though.

I am happy I started quite a few years ago with moving away from Apple software (this is such an effort in itself because of the lock-in). I still have their devices, however, I am looking to replace them with alternatives when they need replacing.

The (tabbed) ui on macos looks so much better now!

Especially since mastodon is accessible for anyone, whether they have a mastodon account or not.

Time will tell. The words of AnkiHub are quite comforting, as it seems they are a small organisation focused on med students. It also seems they were surprised themselves with the offer they received when asking for collaboration.

They also say they will keep it open source 🤞

Firefox is adding an option to add notes to tabs. It is possible to enable it in beta and nightly (not sure about stable) with browser.tabs.notes.enabled set to true.

Yes, I think it is nearly phrased the same in the link somewhere. I guess they also have to consider that it doesn’t get much more expensive than it currently is. If I remember correctly they also want to be an example for other brands, and lead the way for other brands to choose more ethical materials.

The ‘Fair’ in Fairphone relates to their practice to produce the phone as fairtrade as they can. Mind, it is not perfect and I believe they don’t state that it is fully fairtrade either. This often gets confused that it is fair of them to make it repairable.

deleted by creator

While US citizens pay for the tariffs, it may well hurt producers of imported goods.

“The adjustment occurs through reduced trade volumes , not price concessions,” according to the Kiel paper. “Given the choice between maintaining margins on reduced sales or slashing margins to maintain volume, most exporters apparently prefer the former.

Ah well… pedalling 😅

More like a moped, since it doesn’t require paddeling pedalling.

I share that sentiment.

It just doesn’t mean international law means you can shoot whatever you want out of your airspace, nor if a state should want to set that precedent.

There are a lot of other things to consider, like which branch of international law is applicable here (not humanitarian law/law of armed conflict as there is no armed conflict between the concerned states and Israel).

Customary law is to be very careful shooting down planes that violates airspace (which I doubt is the case here, as I expect they were allowed to fly through their respective airspace).

Netanyahu is also not convicted yet. And not all states agree with the ICC’s interpretation of head of state immunity.

There is some reality that needs to be taken into account, both that states have questionable views on Netanyahu, as well as that certain actions leads to unwanted consequences and/or precedents.

I’d rather focus on the fact that all states have an (erga omnes) obligation to prevent and concern themselves with the ongoing genocide, acts against humanity, and war crimes.

Finally, let’s hope Netanyahu sets food in a state that will abide by the warrant and we see him in the Hague soon.

While I am also frustrated that many European states do not take their erga omnes obligations serious in regards to genocide, do I think shooting down a plane on the basis of a disputed warrant would not be a proportionate measure^[1].

Generally planes can be ordered to land, but if they ignore that call and there is no further threat (like many Russian planes), they will generally escort these planes until they are out of the airspace. States do this based on the prohibition of the use of force as defined in article 2 of the UN Charter.

They are indeed tracked down by fighter jets and followed out of the airspace. My point was more that international law doesn’t allow a state to just shoot stuff, even after a warning, when there is no immediate threat.

You don’t just shoot down planes that pose no immediate threat, even though they contain people with warrants or are not allowed in the airspace.

Even Russian planes are not shot down when entering European airspace.

Not even magnets… 🙂‍↔️