If that means proper regulations (as it should) I bet they would hate it.
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.
‘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.
My experience with C++ was when C++ was a relatively new thing. Practically the only notable feature provided by the standard library, was that unholy abuse of bit shift operators for I/O. No standard collections or any other data types.
And every compiler would consider something else a valid C++ code or interpret the same code differently.
I am little bit prejudiced since then… and that is probably where the author is coming from too.
Then things were just getting more complicated (templates and other new syntax quirks), to fill the holes in attempts to make C a ‘high level language’.
Poland and probably most of Europe. You don’t need a car here for everyday living, so there is no point in giving licenses and care to kids.
Bad zoning laws are bad. And these laws are really bad (forcibly separating ‘business’ and residential are makes no sense to me) , but completely deregulating that (like allowing residential building directly adjacent to a dangerous chemical plant or in a flood zone) would be as bad.
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’.