KmlSlmk64

Why can't you restrict usage if you don't comply with local laws? Why can companies like Facebook restrict usage of their new features like Threads in the EU then? Or some US news network restricting access from the EU?

But, like when they would say in their EULA, that people from Texas and Florida are not allowed, then by using the service would be breaking of EULA and the wikipedia foundation could theoretically say that they're not operating there and it's the users fault. Like could someone still sue them then?

What would happen, if they ignored the laws and did not geoblock Texas and Florida, just say they don't operate there, but not restrict the users and still operate the way they operated until now?

What I mean, is that you made me realize what they actually meant, because I've read it as is.

I actually now understand what was meant, because of your comment! I was like Why do they want to receive socialistic agenda later? Incredible what difference a wrong a/e can make! (I'm a non native english speaker, but I think it bothers me/I see it more than the actual natives)

The only problem is if you accidentally include some personal information or other type you don't want to be out there and you've edited it out, you probably don't want it to be accessible.

The Brussels effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect

The funny thing is, that most of the world uses commas as decimal separator and comma is the preferred decimal separator by ISO. But instead, in English speaking countries, the period is used as the decimal separator. Actually it comes from the original decimal separator, that was used in the British Empire called ⟨·⟩. When they were changing units to metric, ISO didn't recognize interpunct as a decimal separator, because it was too similar to the multiplication sign used in other countries. So after some debate in the UK, they've adopted the period, because the US was already using it. From the British Empire, South Africa instead adopted the comma.

I mean, you generally don't want to tie up a lot of money, each year by year, meaning that you would have a lot of frozen capital. And capitalism (which also has some flaws, but right now we are using this system) depends on the flow of money/capital. Also managing these funds would make a lot of work / administration, because someone would have to manage what goes in and out and also in what form the funds to store in. And at the point of storing money from younger people, that is not being spent, whilst using money from older people, why not just have less money stored and use the money from the younger generation for the older ones. And you go full circle to the idea that we wanted to solve. Each system has its benefits and flaws, some of which are greater, which outweigh other, smaller ones. Sometimes the solution can be something completely different.

I don't think that funds are kept in money. IIRC They are mostly kept in other means, so that they are at least somewhat sustainable against inflation. But that doesn't mean that the above idea is good, or doesn't have other flaws.

Google Greek question mark 😁