gnud

Seems like the owner of the github repo claims copyright, though. Since they provide a license.

For Knuth's sake: The GDPR is NOT about cookies! The older 'cookie directive' is also NOT about cookies! They're about a third party storing their data on your computer, or storing your personal data on their computers - no matter what technology is used.

Nothing in the GDPR stops websites from honoring "Do not track" and then _not asking_ if it's present. They don't have to ask if they don't track you! They don't have to ask for a technically necessary session cookie that appears after you actively log in!

Websites ask because they want to track you! A 'law targeting browsers' would not help because people would say no to cookies, and then websites would ask about some other way to track you. Because they want to track you.

Switched from Gmail to Fastmail about 10 years ago.

2-3 spam emails slip through every week, and sometimes a false positive happens when I sign up for something new. I don't see this as a huge problem, and I doubt Gmail is significantly better.

Pretty sure Zed won't let me pay for an editor without any "sign in" or LLM features?

The 'no to tracking' cookie doesn't need to be identifiable in any way.

Luckily, GDPR isn't about cookies, it's about processing personal information. Doesn't matter if you use cookies, localstorage, or carrier pigeon.

The older EU 'cookie directive' only mentions cookies as an example of storage in a footnote. The regulative is actually about any storage on the users computer.

Marketers would like you to believe that the stupid banners are about cookies. They're not - they're about processing your personal information.

This will give more resources to tenants that schedule more jobs.

If tenant A schedules 99 jobs and tenant B schedules 1 job, a "fair" algorithm would pick B's job either first or second, RANDOM() will not.

I'm assuming they disallow bot use in their TOS. So they can probably offer unlimited searches that you run yourself by typing in the terms.

Spam texts are not really a thing here in Norway, either.

I do get three to four phonecalls from spoofed UK numbers every month. I havn't picked up for a year or so, but last time I did, it was a fake "Microsoft Support" scam.

It's actually less of a risk than I thought, because the configuration is on your local install of KeePass, not in the database file.

If an attacker can modify your local install, you've lost anyway....

As I understand it, if you modify the xml, Keepass will silently export entries in the database once you load it (by providing the password).

Keepass will (by default) not ask for the password a second time before exporting - but you have to decrypt the database once before it can be exported.

So this is not a risk if your threat model is "attacker obtains a copy of my .kdbx", but it is a risk if your threat model is "attacker can modify .kdbx without me noticing, and can access my local computer or a mounted network disk to read the exported passwords".

Really not a lawyer, and not in the US, so not sure I understand the 'work for hire'. But 'work for hire' requires some sort of employment contract, surely? And the pay was part of that contract?

So if Disney doesn't uphold the contract, doesn't that mean it wasn't a work for hire, and therefore the copyright belongs to the author?