• 1 Post
  • 24 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: October 21st, 2023

help-circle










  • Can you share where you saw “threatening to arrest and froze bank account”? Twitter made a post on their own page about something along the line. Other than that I couldn’t find any.

    The resignation of the legal representative has more nuance than what you said here. His (not her) name is Diego de Lima Gualda, an attorney in Brazil. After a series of non compliance from Twitter, the Twitter Brazil filed a request arguing that the Twitter international is responsible for compliance and Twitter Brazil does not have authority. The judge dismissed this request for obvious reasons, and the next day he resigned from the position.

    The non compliance led to resignation. This is crucial because the actions of Twitter are the reason why the legal representative faced the consequences. Not that the judge ordered something out of the blue. I think you are missing the key point here.

    Obviously censorship is bad. There is no contention in that. My point is this order is the last one in the long standing feud between Musk and Moraes. Musk has been so aggressive in personally attacking the judge. So portraying the judge as someone going on a power trip is not the accurate picture.

    Edit: Adding more info here. The entire information on the freezing bank account and arrest of the legal representative of Twitter Brazil, is from the Twitter Global Affairs handle. They published a “secret order” from the judge. A few things I noticed are these looks like cherry picked pages of a bigger document due to lack of continuity between page 1 and 2. Usually court orders will include the full context of the petition. Second point is the obvious circumventing strategy the Global Affairs of Twitter also states. They reiterate that only “Twitter International” is responsible for compliance, and not “Twitter Brazil”. This absurd argument introduces the problem of jurisdiction. This is just Twitter trying to fly above the law.

    Earlier I said the legal representative was Diego de Lima Gualda, after his resignation they informed that Rachel de Oliveira Vila Nova Conceição will be the new representative. The order says:

    indicates that the representative of the company X BRASIL INTERNET LTDA., RACHEL DE OLIVEIRA VILLA NOVA CONCEIÇÃO, acting in bad faith, is trying to avoid the regular notification of the decision handed down in the proceedings, including by electronic means, of which she has already demonstrated knowledge, with the aim of frustrating its compliance.

    Therefore, given the negative ruling of the summons and the reported impossibility of contacting the legal representative of the aforementioned company, I DETERMINE THAT the lawyers legally appointed by X BRASIL INTERNET LTDA. be IMMEDIATELY INTIMATED, including electronic means, so that they adopt the necessary measures to comply with the order, within 24 (twenty-four) hours, under penalty of:

    (1) DAILY FINE OF R$20,000.00 (twenty thousand reais) to company administrator, RACHEL DE OLIVEIRA VILLA NOVA CONCEIÇÃO (CPF 255.747.418-57), CUMULATIVE THAT IMPOSED ON THE COMPANY, as well as DECREE OF PRISON for disobeying a court order;

    I think these words are self explanatory. Twitter tried to delay the compliance just by making the legal representative unreachable. This along with the argument that Twitter Brazil is not responsible shows a clearer picture of what Twitter was trying to do and what actually happened. Again I don’t see where the “bank account freezing” is written.

    Edit 2: I forgot to state the obvious. The representative who resigned is not the one who faced fines or “decree of prison”. These are two different representatives. Again the representative is facing this because of the actions of Twitter. This is not a case of judicial activism.








  • Replacing a human with any form of tech has been a long standing practice. Usually in this scenario the profitability or the efficiency takes a known pattern. Unfortunately what you said is the exact way the market always operated in the past, and will be operating in the future.

    The general pattern is a new tech is invented or a new opportunity is identified, then a bunch of companies get into the market as competing entities. They offer competing prices to customers in an attempt to gain market dominance.

    But the problem starts when low profit drives some companies to a situation where either they have to go bust or dissolve the wing, or sell the company to a competitor. Usually after this point a dominant company will emerge in a market segment. Then the monopolies are created. After this point companies either increase the price or exploit customers to get more money, and thereby start making profits. This has been the exact pattern in tech industries for several decades.

    In the case of AI also, this is why companies are racing to capture market dominance. Early adopters always get a small advantage and help them get prominence in the segment.



  • Even though I don’t completely support what the other person said, the defense you are making here is dangerous. It’s not gatekeeping or anything like elitism, which is the argument of the other person. I don’t see the point of arguing with them regarding it.

    So here you said ‘biting more than you can chew’. The fundamental problem I see here, which is something people say about Linux also, is that the entry barrier is pretty high. Most of the time it stems from lack of easy to access documentation in the case of Linux. But when it comes to some specific projects, the documentation is incomplete. Many of the self hostable applications suffer from this.

    People should be able to learn their way to chew bigger things. That is how one can improve. Most people won’t enjoy a steep learning curve. Documentation helps to ease this steepness. Along with that I completely agree with the fact that many people who figure out things, won’t share or contribute into the documentation.

    My point is in such scenarios, I think we should encourage people to contribute into the project, instead of saying there are easier ways to do it. Then only an open source project can grow.


  • I have been using something very similar to this. In my team I insisted on people without any git experience working on a separate local branch, than the feature branch

    . To ensure screw ups are minimal, we pull and create a local feature branch and then a new local only dummy branch, on top of it. Once the team is more comfortable with git, I am planning to treat the local feature branch as a dummy branch.

    So far things have been pretty neat. Spaghetti is no more with minimal conflicts.