I wonder if this has anything to do with the Google ad monopoly case?

It’s like we need a DOI system for lemmy posts.

Long pig

BZFlag has existed for a while now.

🫡

If they don’t individually own the property but pay for upkeep and there is no landlord… that’s a housing cooperative, no?

If you get investing returns (like from shorting those companies)… you’re ironically not eligible to use the IRS direct file pilot (or at least for this year).

Edit: this isn’t to knock direct file… which is good and cool (and should be expanded to have more features)

Repeating “tariffs never work” doesn’t make it any more true. America was founded and developed industry by using a combination of tariffs and free real estate (stolen land) to fund development of the internal US economy. And it worked. Same with Canada’s National Policy in the 1800s.

There’s also servo.

RIP

I think Mozilla just released a Firefox apt repository a few months ago.

Huh, this is the second pro-clean coal post I’ve seen on lemmy in the last few days… and it looks like you posted the other one🤔

https://www.nextgov.com/digital-government/2023/10/irs-wont-add-logingov-without-changes/391033/

That’s WebKit… so basically Safari lol

https://old.lemmy.sdf.org/post/9808257

Bring back the headphone jack.

Elon: more robots guys in gray body suits on order.

Nope, in the article it shows a hard coded 5 second delay.

I’m all for ad blocking and accessable websites, I just don’t think the ADA covers ad blocking through the WCAG.

How would you apply those (or others you think are more appropriate to ad blocking) given that the guidelines are for service providers and ad blocking is usually done client-side.

Probably under WCAG Principle 4: “Content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies.” If we’re treating ad blocking as an assistive technology, purposely attempting to break an assistive technology would run counter to that principle, much in the same way that purposefully breaking a screen reader would (although, it should go with out saying, purposefully breaking screen readability is much worse).

I’m not sure if that’s changed since 2019 or not. California has more specific legislation that covers that, though.

I’m wondering if legal action is something that could be done on a state by state basis starting with California (which conveniently is where Google is headquartered) or if the case could be made that Youtube is used to stream live events and those events should count as a physical nexus under the ADA.

Please see my response above which addresses your points using case law.