I prefer the ribbon. It makes everything easier to discover and use.
It's also entirely configurable so i was able to tailor it specifically to my needs, even include button for my macro, logically grouped and not thrown together with no heads or tail in a "macro" submenu.
It also allows widgets with much richer informational content than menus.
The ribbon is also entirely keyboard navigable with visual hints. Which means you can use anything mouse free without having to remember rarely used shortcuts.
And if the ribbon takes too much space, and you can't afford a better screen, you can hide and show it with ctrl-F1 or a click somewhere (probably).
It's actually a much much better UX than menus and submenus and everything hidden and zero adaptability. At least for tools like the office apps with a bazillion functions.
Most copies of the ribbon are utter shit though because the people who copied didn't understand the strength of the office ribbon and only copied the looks superficially.
It's funny to see people still hung up on the ribbon 17 years later.
It's because of people like you that we still use qwerty on row staggered keyboards from the mechanical typewriter era.
You're joking but infinite growth is the broken basis of our financial system. Shareholder are legally entitled to request growth.
YouTube has cornered the earth market, they have practically no room to grow, the only thing they have left is to increase the revenue per view, so add stuffing will get worse quarter after quarter. Eventually they'll have to put ads in the ads and play them 5 at a time.
Based on what criteria ? By legal definition, all the clients of a defense lawyer are initially innocent until it's proven to be otherwise during trial.
Even the worst piece of shit is entitled to a defender, that's one of the few things that keeps a small amount of fairness in the judicial system.
What you're saying amount to saying that anyone accused of rape should not be entitled to a lawyer or that you think there's some kind of good rapist that deserve a defense and bad rapist that don't... Which is weird.
IANAL. <-- disclaimer.
Consent is not part of the definition of rape in France.
Currently it is defined as any sexual penetration act perpetrated by « violence, coercion, threat or surprise ». Court have also ruled that trickery falls under "surprise". So I can't tell you I'm a astronaut to get laid either (HIMYM was basically a TV show about a guy in a suit raping women). This was ruled during a case where a serial rapist used a model's picture on dating apps to invite woman to have sex in the dark with a blindfold at his place. Turned out he was a 60y old average dude and not Chris Hemsworth and the charge were initially dropped before reaching our higher level of court. (Yes that case was fucked up on too many level...)
There's currently a long standing debate in France, which predate that trial, to include consent as part of the legal definition and a commission has been mandated earlier in the year to study the issue. It's probably not going to happen for a while since we have other political issue at the moment and the right wingers currently clinging to power aren't exactly feminists.
The pro argument are relatively simple to imagine. Rape is when someone does sex stuff you don't want. So it seems to make perfect sense. That's what the Belgian law has and what the EU is pushing.
From what I understand from the people against it, it is more technical. In our legal system, you need to prove that a crime has been committed (innocent until proven guilty) but somehow they think it would shift to burden of proof to the defense because the only way to include it in our legal system would be to assume "non consent" by default and the accused would then have to prove consent.
The other anti argument is that absence of consent is impossible to prove and that the current definition is build to cover the case of non consent with provable definition.
There are probably as many lawyers on both side of the argument and as I said, I am not one of them, law is complicated I'm not qualified to have an opinion on what would be better.
Either way I'm just not really sure adding consent would change most of the outcomes as the main issue to convict is usually the lack of proof and witnesses and most cases ending up deadlocked by a "he said - she said" scenario.
From a purely legal standpoint "consent" isn't required in that case. It falls under "surprise".
Even the biggest YouTube stars represents nothing in terms of views compared to YouTube overall and they don't have any alternative places to go with the same reach if they left YouTube.
Mrbeast does ~500M views a month, Google has 2.5 billions active users generating between ~5 and 10 billions view a day. He represents 0.002% of Google total views. Would you bother negotiating for 0.002% of your salary ?
People who made a carrier of YouTube videos are Google's prisoners, they have literally zero negotiating power.
I remember when, I think, Sony was hacked because of the movie « the interview ». It created enough of a news cycle shitstorm that our corporate overlords became excessively generous with our infosec budget and made it a tier 1 priority.
It went for measly .5% to a whooping 25% of IT expenditure.
On the other hand to really show they didn't understand anything about it they recruited an experienced CISO and fired him a month later because an accountant's workstation was hit by a ransomware. The guy barely had the time to start building a plan and launch a bunch of audit but still got the full blame for decades of neglects. (He eventually sued them and settled).
Let's hope all those computers have been patched for y2k. Wait... What year is this?
This one: https://cyboard.digital/products/imprint
Note, that I don't know what it's worth.
Also, it's about the same price which isn't too surprising since in the manufacturing cost the led are definitely not a big ticket item.
Ça me paraît un peu bécasse comme métrique si on ne prend pas en compte le temps de trajet des gens qui fournissent le service. A paris c'est beaucoup de banlieusard qui font 2 heures de trajet par jours.
Parce que sinon, je suis a 1 minute de ma boîte au lettre, suffit de commander en ligne et hop.