evenwicht
I figured the power consumption of multiple parallel decodings would increase but it would be negligable if limited to occur during channel browsing. If you settle on a signal for 2 min, it could revert to 1 channel.
A more crude improvement would be trivial: simply continue playing the previous buffer during the 3 second gap, but update the display instantly to show the user that their command was received and acted on. The 3 second gap could also be a fade-out to give an audible signal that the channel change command is in motion. The linux app “Clementine” does some of this. When you click the stop button, it does not stop the music instantly but does a fade out.
DJs sometimes have to switch to something else quickly with no time to beat match. It’s not a good situation but their method of choice seems to be a rapid cross-fade, as opposed to a sharp and sudden discrete switch. That slight smoothness helps. With a small buffer the two channels could even slow one channel and speed up the other to do an automatic beat match and cross-fade a bit more smoothly. I would not be surprised if there were some FOSS libs that already provide this sort of thing.
(edit) I should note as well that there is one station that has a very low level so you have to double the volume to match any other station. A device that fades during transitions could normalize the level differences without the user even knowing the differences are there.
I’m not sure what data breaches you’re referring to. The data that makes it into the credit file is not generally due to a breach¹. Every “member” of a credit bureau is free to share info with the credit bureau. Those members (which are generally banks, insurance companies, creditors) usually put in their privacy policy some vague verbiage about sharing with credit bureaus.
If you mean breaches of the credit bureau, like what happened with Equifax, I don’t believe a US court would view the breach itself as quantifiable provable damage to every consumer. I think there would only be (court-recognized) damage if the data were actually exploited in a way that costs you money.
¹ Although I say unlawfully exfiltrated data would unlikely make it onto the credit report, I cannot know for certain precisely because the credit bureau conceals the info source. That’s the reason we would want the law enforced. If CRAs were to share the source info, we would be able to separate the sources we have agreements with from those we don’t, and possibly chase up the sources we did not authorize to investigate where the data came from, which very well could have a supply chain that leads to the black market, a ransom attack, etc.
Accounts and digital assets seem directly applicable to assets held.
And? Holding assets does not in itself trigger tax. Esp. how they are held. Whether your $100 is in a banknote or $100 in gold coins or Second Life game money, or $100 in a cheese wheel, in the absence of a transaction there’s no tax to speak of.
W.r.t accounts, it’s just foriegn accounts they want to know about, not domestic accounts. Walk me through the tax difference between the two (not interest, not cap gains, just having the account).
Occupation sounds like it could have to do with tax credits, if you’re in something that’s subsidised.
If that’s the case, that’s declared on a form that actually has effects on figures, which is not what I’m talking about. That would be an enumeration with a code that discretely assigns an activity from a list to an outcome. If you look at the signature box of the 1040, that’s just a freehand field. You can write “contractor” there or any number of vague things without affecting subsidies. I’m specifically talking about information that does not affect the figures.
Residence is weird but in the opposite way, because usually countries don’t tax residents abroad. 'Murca is the exception there, although I don’t know all the exact details.
Residence indeed affects the figures (whether you are inside or outside the US), but that’s already accounted for by the forms being submitted and the data on them. When a form arbitarily has a field for country of residence and that field in no way affects the figures, it’s extraneous info. Just a data collection that makes no difference to the bottom line. I just had a look at the 1116 form. Whether you write USA or Japan on the residence field makes no difference whatsoever in the in the calculation. You can write anything on that line and it does not change the calculation AFAICT.
Off the top of my head I recall questions about the taxpayer’s occupation, whether foreign bank accounts are held by the taxpayer and whether any digital assets are held. I think some forms (1116, perhaps) ask for country of residence but IIRC this has no influence on the calculations.
It’s not a binary statement. it’s a measure of proportions. So my statement was factually correct. Cloudflared banks are quite rare in Western Europe, for example. I actually cannot think of any off the top of my head. Step into the US, and credit unions are mostly pawned by Cloudflare. It’s a shit show. Hard to find non-Cloudflared CUs, which is an artifact of shoestring-budget funding.
I heard someone talking about a European bank that was considering using Cloudflare and it was met with protest. The bank backed off the idea. In the US people don’t give a shit… they don’t even notice. There’s a bit more blind trust for big corps.
Cloudflare is mostly a US thing. Banks outside the US are a bit more competent¹ in this regard. But there are thousands of banks and CUs in the US and I only need one in the end. The problem is the Discover network narrows the choice down to a tiny fraction of banks. So I’m looking for an intersection of two small sets. If I can find one that functions offline and does not charge extra for paper statements that might be good enough.
¹ (edit) Guess I should clarify. A website that has good security does not rely on the crude practice of DoSing based on IP reputation. If an admin believes they can protect a website by using arbitrary guesswork about IP addresses, that’s alarming because the kind of criminals that should be in their threat models as threat agents would be in control of botnets that give them countless normal residential IPs. Use of Cloudflare is a sign of a poorly secured bank because it suggests they don’t have good enough security to protect from malicious traffic regardless of IP address. Also: not my problem. As a non-clearnet user, I am nixing banks that cannot serve me. That means they must either serve Tor users or they must work offline.
I asked them in writing. It will be interesting to see if they comply.
To be clear, the purpose of the post is to understand the law (the forum being !law_us) because I want to fix this problem for everyone not just myself. I believe these digital rights abuses are so rampant because so few people step up to the plate to fix the problem for everyone. Most people just pragmatically fix the problem for themselves and move on. I want to understand the law to get an idea of the legal actionablity so that I can work out whether I have a pathway to force the CU to make their workflow with all customers legally compliant – which would be a process I can recycle with other similar data abusers (other banks).
I blame Taylor Swift, telling people to “shake, shake, shake it off…” instead of fighting back.
When I visit the opt-out website and it simply prints on the screen “403 Forbidden”. No reason given¹. No recourse given. That is not giving opportunity. When they conceal the URL from some demographics of people, that is also withholding an opportunity to opt-out.
Let’s suppose the opt-out procedure were completely disclosed and fully transparent. Suppose they sent a properly formed email that reveals the opt-out procedure to everyone (inluding those with text-based MUAs). If they were to outright state something like “you must use our preferred network (clearnet, not Tor, not VPN, not CGNAT), you must share your personal IP address with a 3rd party with no expectation of privacy, and you must solve a series of CAPTCHA tests after traversing our cookie wall.” That would still be giving exclusive opportunity. IOW, not everyone has opportunity, just those who are both willing and able to dance for them. When strings are attached to the opt-out, that “opportunity” is conditional. I believe the law would have to specifically state that conditional opportunity is permissable. Otherwise the only valid interpretation of law (IIUC) is that the opportunity be unconditional. Hence my question.
If you believe arbitrarily conditional opportunity is lawful, what’s your limit? What if the procedure requires driving to a remote location, crossing a river with crockodiles, and running through an area with snakes and scorpions in order to reach a form (written in a blend of Mandarin and Apache) that you must fill out requesting an opt-out? Would you still regard that as giving opportunity?
¹ When I say that they are blocking people who are on the Tor network, that is merely my guess. A “403 Forbidden” can manifest for many reasons and in this case the site does not state why a 403 was pushed. But regardless of their undisclosed reason, when they lock someone out of their gate, it is of course denying opportunity to opt out.
