Would the liability shield not generally apply to a foreign entity registered in Germany? Sure there may be special rules for non-compliance with specific tax obligations, but I'm talking about for general liability for other purposes, like a contract signed by the entity where no personal guarantee was given, or a harm caused by the corporation where the owner was not personally involved or negligent in causing the harm.
Specifically, it must be seated where the principal management of the business occurs.
So if the executives and board meetings and books and records are strategically located in one country and most of the business operations are in a second, it's valid and probably even required for the business to have its tax residence in the first country rather than the second.
It may very well have a permanent establishment and therefore some tax obligations in the second country, but that's different from the second country being the primary tax residence.
From a different news story about this change, it doesn't apply to any phone activated before the government issued its approval earlier this month. So any phone which you activated in 2025 is not covered by this.
The kind of older tourist visiting a foreign religious site is definitely going to be relatively indoctrinated regardless of their origin country. But yes, many Americans are indoctrinated. They also tend to be dominant in wide swaths of US geography and highly motivated by their indoctrinators to vote, thus maximizing their electoral impact.
Many other Americans are pretty open-minded to new facts, even today. Unfortunately this kind is relatively geographically concentrated in urban or academic communities, and many of them are also discouraged from voting by being fully aware of how desperate and hard-to-fix the US political situation is, thus minimizing their electoral impact.
In Israel, virtually every Christian relic is fake. Some are hundreds of years old, but nevertheless fake. This is not a comment on Christianity as a religion. Religions need relics, and if they can’t find them, they are created. This is operating in modern times. I was working as a contractor for Intel Israel. They took everybody on a day trip. To an LDS temple to “see the organ” (what else?). An American LDS church. Needed a place in Israel to “represent.” Now wait 100 years. You wait. I have things to do.
Older relics can be tested, but the Catholic church won't really allow it, e.g. San Gennaro's blood in Naples is a flask of red clotted liquid which melts during some ceremonies, and is quite likely not blood at all. But there's a massive community of believers and thus it will not be challenged by the church.
For more modern miracles and relics the church does have a tight grip, and famously one pope threw a whole bag of Christ teeth in the Tiber river, but many older things have been "grandfathered".
DNA tested for what, exactly? I guess things like fragmentary remains may not be human, but a full skull is not so easy to confuse for a donkey. Ethnicity would only be useful if the saint in question had origins that would be out of place in Italy or if they had a specific ethnicity(like St Peter's remains not having a Levantine origin).
Yes well there are other things you could do with a DNA genotype than tag ethnicity or confirm it's human. Specifically related to a similarity metric between genotypes (which is how we go about arriving at an ethnicity estimate)
For example
if said saint has any known living relatives (and we are certain of that), then this confirms the veracity of the relic.
if said saint has multiple relics of various body parts, we DNA test each one and examine concordance.
of course a DNA test may QC fail, not enough DNA, too low quality, etc. But if it passes then we potentially have dead to rights a confirmation or refutation of the relic. For this reason I expect the church would be quite recalcitrant to have it tested, because there is a possible outcome that the relic is revealed to be a fake
Relics are only a way of advertising the religion.
We should ban advertisements of religions. If their gods are so powerful then they shouldn't need advertising. And if you are a believer AND god turns out to be real then banning advertising could lead to the return of Jesus. Win win.
Imagine you have no religion, but are feeling spiritual and want to find something real. Do you go to the church of a religion that claims it has the actual remains of their saints, or the one that only has pictures and empty walls?
Actually, maybe that's a stupid question as people absolutely do both. But there is an element of "look how great we are because we have a splinter from the holy cross in our church".
I don't really think I got your point. All "evidence" that the bones in location X are really those of St. Y, won't have any effect on you, when you don't care about St. Y at all, because you don't believe in that religion.
> Even one of the white papers commissioned by the FSF
Quoting the text which the FSF put at the top of that page:
"This paper is published as part of our call for community whitepapers on Copilot. The papers contain opinions with which the FSF may or may not agree, and any views expressed by the authors do not necessarily represent the Free Software Foundation. They were selected because we thought they advanced the discussion of important questions, and did so clearly."
So, they asked the community to share thoughts on this topic, and they're publishing interesting viewpoints that clearly advance the discussion, whether or not they end up agreeing with them. I do acknowledge that they paid $500 for each paper they published, which gives some validity to your use of the verb "commissioned", but that's a separate question from whether the FSF agrees with the conclusions. They certainly didn't choose a specific author or set of authors to write a paper on a specific topic before the paper was written, which a commission usually involves, and even then the commissioning organization doesn't always agree with the paper's conclusion unless the commission isn't considered done until the paper is updated to match the desired conclusion.
> You will notice that the FSF has not rushed out to file copyright infringement suits even though they probably have more reason to oppose LLMs trained on FOSS code than anyone else in the world.
This would be consistent with them agreeing with this paper's conclusion, sure. But that's not the only possibility it's consistent with.
It could alternatively be because they discovered or reasonably should have discovered the copyright infringement less than three years ago, therefore still have time remaining in their statute of limitations, and are taking their time to make sure they file the best possible legal complaint in the most favorable available venue.
Or it could simply be because they don't think they can afford the legal and PR fight that would likely result.
Since I very specifically wrote "commissioned by the FSF" instead of "represents the opinion of the FSF" to avoid misrepresenting the paper, you're arguing against something I have not said.
All PDF security can be stripped by freely available software in ways that allow subsequent modifications without restriction, except the kind of PDF security that requires an unavailable password to decrypt to view, but in that case viewing isn’t possible either.
Subsequent modifications would of course invalidate any digital signature you’ve applied, but that only matters if the recipient cares about your digital signature remaining valid.
Put another way, there’s no such thing as a true read-only PDF if the software necessary to circumvent the other PDF security restrictions is available on the recipient’s computer and if preserving the validity of your digital signature is not considered important.
But sure, it’s very possible to distribute a PDF that’s a lot more annoying to modify than your private source format. No disagreement there.
You think a recruiter will be a forensic security researcher? Having document level digital signature is enough for 99% of use cases. Most software that a consumer would have respects the signature and prevents any modifications. Sure, you could manually edit the PDF to remove the document signature security and hope that the embedded JavaScript check doesn’t execute…
Nothing that hard. When I had a technically similar need (for non-shady purposes unrelated to recruiting) I found easy installable free GUI software for Windows that worked just fine with a simple Google search. No specialist expertise needed.
Yes, most consumer software does respect what you say. But it’s easy for a minimally motivated consumer to obtain and use software which doesn’t.
However, the context we were discussing was neither a consumer nor a forensic security researcher, but a recruiter trying to do shady things with a resume. I don't expect them to be a specialist, but I do expect them to be able either to get the kind of software I just described with a security stripping feature, or else to have access to third-party software specifically targeting the recruiter market that will do the shady things - including to digitally signed PDFs like yours - without them having to know how it works.
GP attack vector was probably recruiter editing the CV to put their company name in some place and forward it to some client. They are lazy enough to not even copy-paste the CV.
From the changelog, it seems like this may have been due to issues caused by the on-by-default setting, although I don’t work for Tailscale and am speculating here with no inside info.
I wonder, would Tailscale be willing to confirm that they plan to fix whatever the issues are and re-enable this default within a short-ish timeframe? I currently have plenty of trust in the good intentions of the people running Tailscale, but with geopolitics as it currently is, I’d love to have a concrete reason even beyond that positive track record to believe that this change isn’t attempting to satisfy ease-of-surveillance concerns expressed by government agencies in whichever country.
Seems like the issues in question are not within Tailscale's span of control (basically, the devices themselves with TPMs are too unreliable in the general population, so the feature is more appropriate for controlled environments that opt in to its usage).
The TPM devices themselves are reliable, but using them comes with a lot of caveats. 99% of users have never heard of the TPM, and 99% of the ones who have won’t have realized that upgrading the BIOS clears¹ the TPM. Add in the fact that Tailscale users didn’t _know_ that tailscale was using the TPM and you have a recipe for users breaking things without realizing it. In an enterprise environment where you can afford to hire people specifically to care about these thing, using TPMs for additional security is a great idea.
¹: and very few of those can explain that it doesn’t actually clear the TPM. Instead it causes a different state to be measured by the TPM, and in that new state the TPM cannot unlock the keys that were previously stored in it. This is a great way to protect the computer against someone who can pull the hard drive out of the computer and try to read the data off of it, or who can substitute a different BIOS chip to get around a BIOS password, but not so great for ordinary users who want the occasional upgrade to go smoothly.
If the requirement was for the goal of indefinite control of territory, this declaration doesn’t match the requirement even if such declarations do count: he said the US will be running Venezuela during this transition (or “for now” in the particular version you quoted - of course his exact words do vary from moment to moment), not indefinitely.
> If the requirement was for the goal of indefinite control of territory, this declaration doesn’t match the requirement
Yes, it does. “For now” has no definite endpoint and thus states that the mission targets indefinite control of territory. (“Until <clear objective endpoint>” is not, on the surface, indefinite, though if the endpoint is a fixed point in time but one of conditions that may or may not ever be met, it might still be indefinite if the criteria is temporal definition, but “for now” is indefinite by any standard.)
It does not target permanent control, but permanent is distinct from indefinite.
I’ve definitely seen media reports using language similar to what I said outside of my parenthetical, which I don’t view as indefinite.
I also don’t find “for now” to be clearly indefinite, but I agree it depends on which of multiple definitions of “indefinite” you use, and it does fit some definitions. (Similarly, “permanent” also has multiple definitions, some of which overlap with some meanings of “indefinite”.)
Depends, but some things it could mean include clear intent to end the situation within the foreseeable future, taking it outside some but not all definitions of indefinite.
