For a tech site Slashdot sure has its cluster of Luddites.
It's no wonder they're being replaced by H1Bs. I bet most guys here still want to use punch cards as well.
Probably because Slashdotters have to deal with, write, and debug software all day. Really shitty, buggy software. We see really horrible, 'how have they not fixed this yet?' bugs every day with major software packages. Major vendors, major flaws, major crashes. Computers and computer software don't "just work," they simply work 'just enough.' I just got a new car, and the flaws and bugs with the navigation system alone are annoying as hell. Do you think I would trust my life to the same group of people who approved that?
All of these pie-in-the-sky, "the future is magical, accidents will end!" promises are all premised on one thing -- that the software works, and that it works flawlessly. And yes, it has to be flawless. When someone gets into an accident with a manual car, it's the fault of at least one of the people in the accident, and the buck stops with them. When a self-driving car gets into an accident, now the deep-pocket car company is liable for deaths. Get used to enormous lawsuits, and people feeling -less- safe in their cars, because they no longer have control. People hate not having control in dangerous systems.
So yeah, we don't believe in the rosy scenario that these self-driving cars will actually work well enough to eliminate accidents. Those are the promises, and we see those promises broken with every other software vendor on a daily basis. This familiarity only breeds contempt, so yeah, on this issue lots of Slashdotters will come off as Luddites. They have reasons not to trust software vendors with their lives.
If Bambi walks onto the highway, will the car decide to sacrifice you and hit it full speed, in odrer to not have apileup behind you?
That shouldn't be a pileup unless people are tailgating behind you. The definition of tailgating is that you're driving too close to avoid a collision if the car in front slams on the brakes. So yeah, the majority of people on the highways tailgate, but will that still be the case when everyone drives a self-driving car?
These freeway pileups occur because people are making the choice to drive unsafely.
When they accepted payments from some ad companies to get their ads unblocked by default, then they became an extortionist racket. If I install some ad-blocker, and then brand X cuts a check to them to get their listing removed.. I didn't ask to see brand X's ads. The fact that that money changed hands has nothing to do with me, it reduces the value of the ad-blocker, and it gives a lot of ammunition that advertising groups can use to charge that this isn't really about consumer choice, but about a shake-down. So fuck AdBlock and their "Acceptable Ads" BS. That someone was willing to pay them should be the LAST factor for whether an ad is "acceptable" and unblocked by default.
Having any type control link is susceptible to multiple types of attacks. This will drive the push for more autonomy and AI.
That's unfortunate. The US and the Soviets avoided World War III a few times when humans made judgement calls and ignored machine readings. Nov 1973: NORAD systems detected a full-scale Soviet attack had been launched. A computer had been placed into test mode where it had generated an Armageddon scenario; this was interpreted by the other computers as being real events.
Sep 1983: The nuclear early warning system alerts the Soviets of an impending nuclear strike. Stanislav Petrov did not report the strike as the launch detection system was new so he didn't trust it, and five missiles seemed an oddly small first strike.
Jan 1995: "The Norweigian Rocket Incident," where information about a planned rocket test had not made it to Russian radar operators.
The list goes on. I vaguely remember similar reports involving a nuclear submarine. A system involving a decision so catastrophic should not be made automatically, and should always default to "do nothing."
For one, what ever happened to the whole "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" that is in the 4th amendment. I guess with a warrant it still fits because it goes on with the text describing that warrants shall be necessary. But once they have this cracked version of the iOS, I don't believe they will wait for a warrant each time they want to open a phone. They certainly don't care about warrants with some of the other things they have done in the past.
The way I read it, the US Government is asking for all doors be outfitted with locks that our law enforcement agencies have the keys to. And of course if someone sneaks a key out and gives it to the mob, well then the mob has a key that can open every lock, too. Sneak out the key and give it to the Chinese Government, now the Chinese can open all the doors in the US, with no one being particularly able to trace how that happened. I can't see that as passing the muster of the 4th Amendment in the physical space, why would it have to be different in virtual space?
* I know that's a bad word these days, but I stand by it. Nowhere else on Earth has seen the prosperity, personal wealth, and standard of living that we have achieved. And that was done through freedom and liberty, not because we acted like Stalin or Mao.
You sure about that? We have a number of countries who aren't our friends, especially in Latin and South America, because the US treated other countries as tribute states, raiding the resources and overthrowing governments who didn't toe the colonial line. The US talked a very good talk, and I believe in the ideal of American Exceptionalism, but in practice, it's an ideal we've tried to live up to and fallen short -- and it's been that way since its very founding.
Chinese citizens and American citizens are guaranteed different protections under each of their respective sets of laws.
Asking why Apple wouldn't do the same thing for Chinese citizens as it has for American citizens is just silly. It's apples and oranges.
Two completely different sets of regulations and two completely different sets of protections. I'm assuming that Apple would operate within the bounds of the law to protect Chinese users as much as the Chinese legal system allows.
We don't, say, assist in the torture of Americans and suppression just the law makes such actions illegal. We do it because we believe it's morally wrong, and it doesn't suddenly become ok because it's happening to people outside of the jurisdiction of our laws.
Boy, Trump is not an eloquent speaker. I was watching the Republican debate last night, because God help me, I watch every debate in full, and Marco Rubio finally went for the jugular with his Emperor Has No Clothes characterization of Trump.
RUBIO:... We already mentioned that (inaudible) plan, I know what that is, but what else is part of your plan... TRUMP:... You don't know much... RUBIO:... So, you're only thing is to get rid of the lines around the states. What else is part of your healthcare plan... TRUMP:... The lines around the states... RUBIO:... That's your only plan... [...] TRUMP:... You get rid of the lines, it brings in competition. So, instead of having one insurance company taking care of New York, or Texas, you'll have many. They'll compete, and it'll be a beautiful thing. RUBIO: Alright... RUBIO: So, that's the only part of the plan? Just the lines? TRUMP: The nice part of the plan -- you'll have many different plans. You'll have competition, you'll have so many different plans. RUBIO: Now he's repeating himself. TRUMP: (inaudible) I watched him repeat himself five times four weeks ago... RUBIO:... I just watched you repeat yourself five times five seconds ago... [...] RUBIO:... I see him repeat himself every night, he says five things, everyone's dumb, he's gonna make America great again... BASH:... Senator Rubio... RUBIO:... We're going to win, win win, he's winning in the polls... BASH:... Senator Rubio, please. RUBIO:... And the lines around the state. (APPLAUSE) RUBIO:... Every night. BASH: Senator Rubio, you will have time to respond if you would just let Mr. Trump respond to what you've just posed to him... RUBIO:... Yeah, he's going to give us his plan now, right? OK... BASH:... If you could talk a little bit more about your plan. I know you talked about... TRUMP:... We're going to have many different plans because... BASH:... Can you be a little specific... TRUMP:... competition... RUBIO:... He's done it again.
I'm no fan of Rubio's, but finally the other candidates are starting to point out how air-headed and repetitive all of Trump's talking points are. Eloquent speaker indeed. Insulting anyone who disagrees with him (classic narcissistic trait) and just saying we're going to 'win.' He has all the debate ability and the temperament of a 10-year-old, but it's such a contrast to the overprotective wishy-washy never-actually-say-anything-that-can-be-fact-checked method of campaigning that I guess for some people, it's refreshing.
Maybe the other candidates were afraid to do this because they know that primaries are all about boldly promising things you have no chance in hell of delivering (see: Sanders).
Trump has made statements that have later been exposed as false or deceptive â" only after they have ricocheted across the Internet.
Oh, NOW you complain about this. Is this not in fact the way the internet has worked since day one? Is this not in fact the very premise the entire news industry is based on?
The news industry? No, the "premise" of the news industry, regardless of reality, is that the news would report the truth. They'd have these guys called journalists and reporters who would actually check out stories rather than just repeat what the nearest person said.
Somewhere along the line, "being first" started to trump "being right." Being first, even by half an hour, became the highlight.
Maybe this comes and goes in waves. Things are worse than they used to be, but it's still nowhere near as bad as when, say, Heart and Pulitzer were fighting for newspaper control.
It's not like we really honored the US Constitution since the so-called "patriot act" after 911. Benjamin Franklin said it best: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." When will we learn?
That's cool, but I think we've seen that most people in the United States do not hold Franklin's ideals. They're more than willing to give up some stuff they don't really care about in order to make it more difficult for the Terries to come over and kill them and their families.
They can have my encryption when they outlaw all firearms.
What the hell does one have to do with another?
Until 1992, export of encryption from the United States (basically, any product or software using it had to be in-country only) was banned; classified on the US Munitions List as an "auxiliary military equipment." It wasn't just export, but there were regulatory hurdles regular products needed to go through. I remember using Netscape in the early 90s, and there was a "U.S. version" and an "international version," the latter of which included much weaker encryption, but getting the US version was such a pain in the ass that most people stuck with the international version.
So encryption was once classified as munitions, but while personal firearms never seem to get much regulation, strong encryption got a ban.
Says who? You? Ah, forgive me for not seeing directly how your world look should define how I live my life. How dare I not see that you hold the ultimate truths and can define any word to mean whatever you want it to, I didn't recognise you in your spire disguise Dear Leader...
Ah yes, the person who argues you should have the freedom of your choice of repair people is the dictatorial one here.
They HAVE to allow 3rd party parts, just like the automakers had to eventually be forced to.,
Uhhhh... yeah, about that. That's not really the case anymore either. Automakers have found ways to force out 3rd-party competition through the use of proprietary electronics systems that most components in new cars require. You can still put whatever tires you want on a modern car (for now) and do your own oil and fluids changes. Maybe the battery, too. But for everything else we're back to square one.
They'd have an easy vote to remove Obama from office.
Eh, it's too little, too late. A lifetime of Obama to save them from another 11 months of Obama?
Or, as one Republican Congressman put it when asked by a reporter why the Republican Congress will never attempt to impeach Obama: "Have you seen our Vice-President?"
No such thing as 'recess appointments' for Supreme Court Justices.
There are a long line of nominees that are not seated in SCOTUS, the most obvious recent one was Robert Bork.
Ask Joe Biden why it was OK for Dems to deny Bork, yet Republicans can't block Obama's nominees?
There's a difference between voting down a particular justice appointment due to his untenable politics and refusing to accept any justice appointment from the current President.
If you vote down a justice, it should be because of that particular justice's philosophy, not because you don't like the current President and you don't want him to be able to appoint anyone.
LOL The witch loses to everyone in head to head polls So does the commie.
Not surprising when your party is about Identity politics.
You're kidding, right?
Granted, the Democrats don't have a strong field this year. Bernie's rise shows just how tepid the support for Clinton has been. Even though she was supposed to be crowned easily, every Democrat has been saying "surely we have someone better?" while waving their Hillary flags.
However, somehow. SOMEHOW. The field of Republican challengers is even worse. Trump? What a joke, I know I don't think about the intelligence of the electorate too charitably, but the general voter block isn't THAT stupid. Ultra-war-hawk Rubio, ready to trample any rights and give up any moral high ground to kill terrorists? Cruz, who will happily toss aside the Constitution if it conflicts with his religious Dominionism?
John Kasich seems like a good guy. Sadly I can't see him getting the party nomination.
Without bothering to read the article, it's probably relevant that the user in question is a resident of France, and access the site from France.
Facebook obviously know this, as it's a key attribute used to target advertising.
It doesn't matter if the user is in France. What should matter is if the site is located in France. What matters, or at least what has mattered to this point, is that the hosting country enforces its laws upon the hosting company. Random user from random country is shit out of luck.
So Facebook has the option of pulling out of France and shutting down facebook.fr. Which they won't do any more than they will for countries with harsher laws -- because they're about market share, and will compromise anything else to get it.
Look, I get that everyone's tired about the pedantry surrounding that word, but it only stems from the fact people keep abusing it. Just take half a second to think to yourself before you say "literally": is the really true? Is it literally literally? Even if the answer is no, that doesn't have to cripple your argument. There are other perfectly acceptable words which can impart emphasis.
The answer in this case is "yes," it is literally literally true. As in, what the GP said happens is exactly what happens, it's no analogy or exaggeration. It's not 100% true in every single circumstance, but few things ever are.
Slashdot Mirror
For a tech site Slashdot sure has its cluster of Luddites.
It's no wonder they're being replaced by H1Bs. I bet most guys here still want to use punch cards as well.
Probably because Slashdotters have to deal with, write, and debug software all day. Really shitty, buggy software.
We see really horrible, 'how have they not fixed this yet?' bugs every day with major software packages. Major vendors, major flaws, major crashes. Computers and computer software don't "just work," they simply work 'just enough.' I just got a new car, and the flaws and bugs with the navigation system alone are annoying as hell. Do you think I would trust my life to the same group of people who approved that?
All of these pie-in-the-sky, "the future is magical, accidents will end!" promises are all premised on one thing -- that the software works, and that it works flawlessly. And yes, it has to be flawless. When someone gets into an accident with a manual car, it's the fault of at least one of the people in the accident, and the buck stops with them. When a self-driving car gets into an accident, now the deep-pocket car company is liable for deaths. Get used to enormous lawsuits, and people feeling -less- safe in their cars, because they no longer have control. People hate not having control in dangerous systems.
So yeah, we don't believe in the rosy scenario that these self-driving cars will actually work well enough to eliminate accidents. Those are the promises, and we see those promises broken with every other software vendor on a daily basis. This familiarity only breeds contempt, so yeah, on this issue lots of Slashdotters will come off as Luddites. They have reasons not to trust software vendors with their lives.
If Bambi walks onto the highway, will the car decide to sacrifice you and hit it full speed, in odrer to not have apileup behind you?
That shouldn't be a pileup unless people are tailgating behind you. The definition of tailgating is that you're driving too close to avoid a collision if the car in front slams on the brakes. So yeah, the majority of people on the highways tailgate, but will that still be the case when everyone drives a self-driving car?
These freeway pileups occur because people are making the choice to drive unsafely.
Yet owning an AK47 is. Don't you find that absurd?
Firearms ownership is protected in the Constitution. Thus, it has a higher protection priority than passenger vehicles.
When they accepted payments from some ad companies to get their ads unblocked by default, then they became an extortionist racket.
If I install some ad-blocker, and then brand X cuts a check to them to get their listing removed.. I didn't ask to see brand X's ads. The fact that that money changed hands has nothing to do with me, it reduces the value of the ad-blocker, and it gives a lot of ammunition that advertising groups can use to charge that this isn't really about consumer choice, but about a shake-down. So fuck AdBlock and their "Acceptable Ads" BS. That someone was willing to pay them should be the LAST factor for whether an ad is "acceptable" and unblocked by default.
Having any type control link is susceptible to multiple types of attacks. This will drive the push for more autonomy and AI.
That's unfortunate. The US and the Soviets avoided World War III a few times when humans made judgement calls and ignored machine readings.
Nov 1973: NORAD systems detected a full-scale Soviet attack had been launched. A computer had been placed into test mode where it had generated an Armageddon scenario; this was interpreted by the other computers as being real events.
Sep 1983: The nuclear early warning system alerts the Soviets of an impending nuclear strike. Stanislav Petrov did not report the strike as the launch detection system was new so he didn't trust it, and five missiles seemed an oddly small first strike.
Jan 1995: "The Norweigian Rocket Incident," where information about a planned rocket test had not made it to Russian radar operators.
The list goes on. I vaguely remember similar reports involving a nuclear submarine. A system involving a decision so catastrophic should not be made automatically, and should always default to "do nothing."
For one, what ever happened to the whole "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" that is in the 4th amendment. I guess with a warrant it still fits because it goes on with the text describing that warrants shall be necessary. But once they have this cracked version of the iOS, I don't believe they will wait for a warrant each time they want to open a phone. They certainly don't care about warrants with some of the other things they have done in the past.
The way I read it, the US Government is asking for all doors be outfitted with locks that our law enforcement agencies have the keys to. And of course if someone sneaks a key out and gives it to the mob, well then the mob has a key that can open every lock, too. Sneak out the key and give it to the Chinese Government, now the Chinese can open all the doors in the US, with no one being particularly able to trace how that happened. I can't see that as passing the muster of the 4th Amendment in the physical space, why would it have to be different in virtual space?
* I know that's a bad word these days, but I stand by it. Nowhere else on Earth has seen the prosperity, personal wealth, and standard of living that we have achieved. And that was done through freedom and liberty, not because we acted like Stalin or Mao.
You sure about that? We have a number of countries who aren't our friends, especially in Latin and South America, because the US treated other countries as tribute states, raiding the resources and overthrowing governments who didn't toe the colonial line. The US talked a very good talk, and I believe in the ideal of American Exceptionalism, but in practice, it's an ideal we've tried to live up to and fallen short -- and it's been that way since its very founding.
Chinese citizens and American citizens are guaranteed different protections under each of their respective sets of laws.
Asking why Apple wouldn't do the same thing for Chinese citizens as it has for American citizens is just silly. It's apples and oranges.
Two completely different sets of regulations and two completely different sets of protections. I'm assuming that Apple would operate within the bounds of the law to protect Chinese users as much as the Chinese legal system allows.
We don't, say, assist in the torture of Americans and suppression just the law makes such actions illegal. We do it because we believe it's morally wrong, and it doesn't suddenly become ok because it's happening to people outside of the jurisdiction of our laws.
That's sort of the definition of deviance, isn't it? Something that's out of the norms.
Boy, Trump is not an eloquent speaker. I was watching the Republican debate last night, because God help me, I watch every debate in full, and Marco Rubio finally went for the jugular with his Emperor Has No Clothes characterization of Trump.
RUBIO: ... We already mentioned that (inaudible) plan, I know what that is, but what else is part of your plan... ... You don't know much... ... So, you're only thing is to get rid of the lines around the states. What else is part of your healthcare plan... ... The lines around the states... ... That's your only plan... ... You get rid of the lines, it brings in competition. So, instead of having one insurance company taking care of New York, or Texas, you'll have many. They'll compete, and it'll be a beautiful thing. ... I just watched you repeat yourself five times five seconds ago... ... I see him repeat himself every night, he says five things, everyone's dumb, he's gonna make America great again... ... Senator Rubio... ... We're going to win, win win, he's winning in the polls... ... Senator Rubio, please. ... And the lines around the state. ... Every night. ... Yeah, he's going to give us his plan now, right? OK... ... If you could talk a little bit more about your plan. I know you talked about... ... We're going to have many different plans because... ... Can you be a little specific... ... competition... ... He's done it again.
TRUMP:
RUBIO:
TRUMP:
RUBIO:
[...]
TRUMP:
RUBIO: Alright...
RUBIO: So, that's the only part of the plan? Just the lines?
TRUMP: The nice part of the plan -- you'll have many different plans. You'll have competition, you'll have so many different plans.
RUBIO: Now he's repeating himself.
TRUMP: (inaudible) I watched him repeat himself five times four weeks ago...
RUBIO:
[...]
RUBIO:
BASH:
RUBIO:
BASH:
RUBIO:
(APPLAUSE)
RUBIO:
BASH: Senator Rubio, you will have time to respond if you would just let Mr. Trump respond to what you've just posed to him...
RUBIO:
BASH:
TRUMP:
BASH:
TRUMP:
RUBIO:
I'm no fan of Rubio's, but finally the other candidates are starting to point out how air-headed and repetitive all of Trump's talking points are. Eloquent speaker indeed. Insulting anyone who disagrees with him (classic narcissistic trait) and just saying we're going to 'win.' He has all the debate ability and the temperament of a 10-year-old, but it's such a contrast to the overprotective wishy-washy never-actually-say-anything-that-can-be-fact-checked method of campaigning that I guess for some people, it's refreshing.
Maybe the other candidates were afraid to do this because they know that primaries are all about boldly promising things you have no chance in hell of delivering (see: Sanders).
Killing someone's reputation online is literally, literally as bad as putting them in the gas chambers.
Trump has made statements that have later been exposed as false or deceptive â" only after they have ricocheted across the Internet.
Oh, NOW you complain about this. Is this not in fact the way the internet has worked since day one? Is this not in fact the very premise the entire news industry is based on?
The news industry? No, the "premise" of the news industry, regardless of reality, is that the news would report the truth. They'd have these guys called journalists and reporters who would actually check out stories rather than just repeat what the nearest person said.
Somewhere along the line, "being first" started to trump "being right." Being first, even by half an hour, became the highlight.
Maybe this comes and goes in waves. Things are worse than they used to be, but it's still nowhere near as bad as when, say, Heart and Pulitzer were fighting for newspaper control.
It's not like we really honored the US Constitution since the so-called "patriot act" after 911. Benjamin Franklin said it best: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." When will we learn?
That's cool, but I think we've seen that most people in the United States do not hold Franklin's ideals. They're more than willing to give up some stuff they don't really care about in order to make it more difficult for the Terries to come over and kill them and their families.
They can have my encryption when they outlaw all firearms.
What the hell does one have to do with another?
Until 1992, export of encryption from the United States (basically, any product or software using it had to be in-country only) was banned; classified on the US Munitions List as an "auxiliary military equipment." It wasn't just export, but there were regulatory hurdles regular products needed to go through. I remember using Netscape in the early 90s, and there was a "U.S. version" and an "international version," the latter of which included much weaker encryption, but getting the US version was such a pain in the ass that most people stuck with the international version.
So encryption was once classified as munitions, but while personal firearms never seem to get much regulation, strong encryption got a ban.
Says who? You? Ah, forgive me for not seeing directly how your world look should define how I live my life. How dare I not see that you hold the ultimate truths and can define any word to mean whatever you want it to, I didn't recognise you in your spire disguise Dear Leader...
Ah yes, the person who argues you should have the freedom of your choice of repair people is the dictatorial one here.
They HAVE to allow 3rd party parts, just like the automakers had to eventually be forced to.,
Uhhhh... yeah, about that. That's not really the case anymore either. Automakers have found ways to force out 3rd-party competition through the use of proprietary electronics systems that most components in new cars require. You can still put whatever tires you want on a modern car (for now) and do your own oil and fluids changes. Maybe the battery, too. But for everything else we're back to square one.
"Poor" pay far less than that. The ones who really get socked are the "middle class."
I suppose I should amend my own statement to say that the poor pay far less than that in income taxes.
The current tax rate is 42% of Income; ask me how I know.
Sorry for being poor. If you were really rich, you'd pay way less.
"Poor" pay far less than that. The ones who really get socked are the "middle class."
They'd have an easy vote to remove Obama from office.
Eh, it's too little, too late. A lifetime of Obama to save them from another 11 months of Obama?
Or, as one Republican Congressman put it when asked by a reporter why the Republican Congress will never attempt to impeach Obama: "Have you seen our Vice-President?"
No such thing as 'recess appointments' for Supreme Court Justices.
There are a long line of nominees that are not seated in SCOTUS, the most obvious recent one was Robert Bork.
Ask Joe Biden why it was OK for Dems to deny Bork, yet Republicans can't block Obama's nominees?
There's a difference between voting down a particular justice appointment due to his untenable politics and refusing to accept any justice appointment from the current President.
If you vote down a justice, it should be because of that particular justice's philosophy, not because you don't like the current President and you don't want him to be able to appoint anyone.
Basically what the person you're referring to mentioned is correct: "that means no decision is made."
If the Supreme Court ties, then the lower court ruling isn't "upheld" so much as the Supreme Court trial never took place.
given how the mainstream demonizes trump, he must be a quite virtuous guy and your analysis is not correct.
The mainstream demonizes Hitler as well. Maybe "mainstream = always bad" isn't a coherent political philosophy.
LOL The witch loses to everyone in head to head polls
So does the commie.
Not surprising when your party is about Identity politics.
You're kidding, right?
Granted, the Democrats don't have a strong field this year. Bernie's rise shows just how tepid the support for Clinton has been. Even though she was supposed to be crowned easily, every Democrat has been saying "surely we have someone better?" while waving their Hillary flags.
However, somehow. SOMEHOW. The field of Republican challengers is even worse. Trump? What a joke, I know I don't think about the intelligence of the electorate too charitably, but the general voter block isn't THAT stupid. Ultra-war-hawk Rubio, ready to trample any rights and give up any moral high ground to kill terrorists? Cruz, who will happily toss aside the Constitution if it conflicts with his religious Dominionism?
John Kasich seems like a good guy. Sadly I can't see him getting the party nomination.
Without bothering to read the article, it's probably relevant that the user in question is a resident of France, and access the site from France.
Facebook obviously know this, as it's a key attribute used to target advertising.
It doesn't matter if the user is in France. What should matter is if the site is located in France. What matters, or at least what has mattered to this point, is that the hosting country enforces its laws upon the hosting company. Random user from random country is shit out of luck.
So Facebook has the option of pulling out of France and shutting down facebook.fr. Which they won't do any more than they will for countries with harsher laws -- because they're about market share, and will compromise anything else to get it.
this is literally how it woks these days.
Look, I get that everyone's tired about the pedantry surrounding that word, but it only stems from the fact people keep abusing it. Just take half a second to think to yourself before you say "literally": is the really true? Is it literally literally? Even if the answer is no, that doesn't have to cripple your argument. There are other perfectly acceptable words which can impart emphasis.
The answer in this case is "yes," it is literally literally true. As in, what the GP said happens is exactly what happens, it's no analogy or exaggeration. It's not 100% true in every single circumstance, but few things ever are.