I searched for each of the supported eInk devices and they were all tiny. Anyone know if there is a larger reader (maybe Paperwhite size-ish) that might run this?
You bet I am angry. I am tired of people defending a law by saying “that’s not what it was meant to do!” As if the intent matters one bit. What matters is the result of the law. And the result of this regulation is to make the web universally crappier than it was before. It did basically nothing to improve things in the real world.
The general council (lawyers) at companies are making the decisions around cookies banners and the like, not the folks trying to make money. Regardless of how you might interpret the law and requirements around GDPR, the legal profession as a whole seems to think the crap we live with today is necessary. If it isn’t, it’s on the EU technocrats to clarify in communications, written rules, and on their own damn website what it is supposed to look like.
So the EU commission put out a rule that you say has been widely misunderstood and implemented via malicious compliance. Where is the EU statement and education on this? Why aren’t they louder in explaining this isn’t what they wanted? And they allow their own websites to do the very thing that they supposedly don’t want?
Do you maybe want to reconsider? Perhaps instead companies are putting in a good faith effort to comply. I have been invoked in discussions around legal compliance of all sorts of regulation and trust me: no one has ever ever expressed “let’s do some terrible thing because we disagree with regulation”. It’s conspiratorial thinking.
In the US, the problem with this as a solution if you had some contract or agreement with the company, simply not paying doesn’t mean you have cancelled that contract. They could continue to bill you, report non-payment to credit bureaus and try to come after you via collections.
Many/most won’t do all that but it is something to keep in mind.
That indemnity clause is only for Team, Enterprise and API users. Do you know what was used here?
Also the commercial version is limited to “…Customer and its personnel, successors, and assigns…”. I am very much not a lawyer and couldn’t find definitions of these in the agreement but I am not sure how transferable this indemnity would be to an open source project.
This post reminds me of a 14-year old boy reading the MS-DOS manual to figure out what AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS at his younger brother’s football games.
If you are truly incapable of even imagining the objections (that you might disagree with!) you should probably get out of your bubble and expand the content you consume.