perennate
Joined 11 years ago
Karma
978
Submissions
262
Member since
Nov 8
Recent submissions
Comment · 5 months ago
The end of Chapter 1 is a rape scene, I wouldn't call it "mild". I imagine it can be difficult to read for many people.
Comment · 3 years ago
> capital gains tax rate is 50%
That makes it sound like you pay half of capital gains in taxes, but I think what you mean is that 50% of capital gains is taxable, and that this portion is taxed at the same rate as other personal income. Personally I think 100% of capital gains should be taxable at the marginal income tax rate.
Comment · 4 years ago
> I wouldn't trust a support page's definition of "opt-in"
The support page doesn't have any definition of "opt-in". It simply says that users need to click under "Turn your PC's idle time to cash" and then accept a "License and Services Agreement" before they can access the "Norton Crypto dashboard" and enable "mining during idle time". I would consider that opt-in given that the user has to perform multiple steps before they can even enable the miner, and given that there isn't any suggestion to enable this by default during the installation process. If you don't consider that "opt-in", then please explain.
There seems to be a mob here that has been misled to think that the cryptocurrency miner is enabled by default and runs on every Norton user's computer in the background, whereas in reality it IS installed by default (as in the binary takes up storage space on the user's hard drive), but can only be enabled with multiple steps including agreeing to a separate services agreement that is dedicated to the Norton Crypto product.
(I still think it's dumb to bundle a crypto miner with an anti-virus product. But all this talk about it running without the user's consent is nonsense.)
Comment · 4 years ago
See also https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/v... seems clearly opt-in.
Comment · 4 years ago
> You can however "pause" the mining forever while keeping everything installed which is what support will suggest if you ask.
Just to clarify because this sentence sounds a bit misleading -- according to https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/v... the cryptocurrency miner is off by default, so if you haven't turned it on, then there's no need to pause it if you don't want it running.
Comment · 4 years ago
It is installed but not activated without warning AFAIK. According to https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/v... the user must first agree to a Norton Crypto License and Services Agreement and then explicitly activate the miner before anything will happen.
Comment · 4 years ago
> oblivious customers
Users must explicitly agree to a Norton Crypto License and Services Agreement and activate mining before the software starts mining Ethereum. It is unlikely there would be any oblivious customers.
See https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/v...
Comment · 4 years ago
> (1) does not inform the user or ask for consent
> (2) seemingly does not offer an option to disable it
Where do you see this? As far as I can tell, it is off by default, and the user must explicitly enable it (consent) to use the miner.
See e.g. https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/v... which mentions a License and Services Agreement that must be accepted before the miner can be used at all, and clearly says the mining status can be toggled between Active and Paused.
Comment · 5 years ago
I agree that there needs to be a balance. I'd argue that US defamation law is close to the "right" balance, by making a stronger case needed to prosecute defamation against public figures (like public officials or celebrities), and by focusing not exactly on intention but on whether the defendant within reason could have believed the statement was true.
Comment · 5 years ago
> then the question is whether you actively participated in
There is another important question: intention. In the US, "for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case in the United States, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth" [1].
It seems to me that most of the problems come not from having the defamation law to begin with like you said, but from the law applying even to defendants who believed the information they were creating or disseminating was true.
Comment · 5 years ago
I agree that they might be missing the point, but I also feel that adding a one or two extra CSS lines is really needed to turn something that is very unpleasant to read (the biggest problem being the unlimited width) into something that is really basically perfect. Like, this one is actually pretty much perfect, while the original makes me want to manually add a max-width from the inspector.