I just tried Qwant out of curiousity and immediately got a headache from the bright blue-purple color. Its UI isn't as readable as Google and I would find it annoying to use frequently.
Also, shouldn't EU Parliament web browsers follow the same standards as the EU requires of Google-- i.e. users are prompted to choose a search engine after installation?
The top-level discussed a theoretical risk of data being exfiltrated by third parties for training. Other comments discussed contract law and legal remedies, including Delaware’s excellent court system for handling business disputes.
None of this means you don’t have the same rights as an individual to enforce contract terms. I think the top commenters discussed corporate law because that is where most IP theft occurs, and corporate customers have strong contracts covering data protection.
When I chuckle because of the idea that one sees the US corporate legal system as “robust”, and then give an explanation for why I (me! personally!) chuckled, what is the point of trying to argue? For what exactly?
To give yet another personal reason for my chuckle besides the ones I already gave: I don’t consider a legal system where I can simply move state when I don’t like the law not very robust. Or one that can “look back to (a mere) 200 years of case law” - especially given how that is being (re)interpreted in recent years.
That is my personal opinion. You’re entitled to your opinion, your definitions, your perspectives. I remain chuckling :) we don’t have to always agree or dig holes of rational debate, we can just find stuff funny or not. I volunteered why it is funny to me when that causes irritation with some. I read the high number of upvotes as potential agreement.
I see the challenge here is that the plaintiff surmised there was a faulty “algorithm,” but didn’t have proof until the government published its audit report nearly a year later. I wonder if the claim would have succeeded if she instead simply alleged that the government was improperly allocating school spots on a widespread basis without claiming there was an algorithm.
I don’t think The Guardian’s headline is accurate because the algorithm didn’t win, rather the parent involved didn’t have her day in court at all. Regardless, this is another example of the everyday issues people face (and will continue to face) when governments use technology improperly.
What I find most interesting about this website is that even in 2026, Germany still requires website owners— even hobbyists- to list their name and personal address in the Impressum. So much for anonymity.
This is admirable but the process in Germany right now is overly burdensome. It probably does weed out some bad actors (and good actors) not because of the documents required or any sort of checks performed, but because it takes months and costs thousands of euros.
With all due respect this opinion verges on neo prohibitionist alarmism. The social benefits of alcohol have been widely acknowledged and at a time when we are all spending too much time at home on our phones (arguably worse for health than a pint), communities need more social spaces. That place may not necessarily be a bar and it’s perfectly fine if you don’t wish to drink, but it’s a bit much to refer to a cultural product as a criminal enterprise.
The social benefits do not come from alcohol. At the very best, they come from what we have learned to believe about alcohol.
Alcohol consumption follows a nasty curve. The average adult in the UK drinks about 11 liters of pure alcohol per year on average. Which is obviously a lot. But what's worse is, almost no one drinks 11 liters. The median is much lower, exactly how low is hard to find numbers on but as much as 1 in 5 Brits don't drink at all.
That means most of the alcohol is consumed by people who drink way too much by any sane definition.
If you own a pub, or an "off license", or arrange a music festival or pretty much any cultural venue, you know that in your bones. Staying afloat without selling alcohol, in particular without selling alcohol to people who drink far more than they should, is hopeless. You can't change things on your own. And even suggesting we should maybe work together to change will alienate your most profitable customers, who are understandably defensive about their drinking.
No, it's not a criminal enterprise, by definition. But you'll do better if you have a criminal's attitude - pick one: denial (consuming a lot yourself may help), rationalization ("if I didn't do it someone else would") or callousness. That's one reason pub chains do better.
Many people have written what you have written, trying to justify their life choices to strangers on the internet.
None of them have ever explained why alcohol, or any drug use, needs to be part of third spaces.
Society is losing third spaces, largely due to unchecked capitalism eroding the society it serves... but 'pubs' are just another form of rent-seeking by landlords. It has been proven without a doubt that third spaces as a commercial venture is ultimately non-functional, yet that is what pubs and bars have always been, and now they are dying out.
> None of them have ever explained why alcohol, or any drug use, needs to be part of third spaces.
Third places need to have some kind of draw, else nobody will show up. "If you build it, they will come" is for the movies. In the real world you need to have a compelling reason to have others come in your door. Space alone is not sufficient to establish a third space.
That draw doesn't necessarily have to be alcohol (or another drug), but it was the thing that many people used to want. Threatening use of a third space by fear of the wrath of a mighty deity only buys you one day out of the week, I'm afraid.
You're quite right that people no longer want alcohol like they used to. Why nurse a hangover when you can get the same dopamine rush scrolling through TikTok at home from the comfort of your couch? This means that many third spaces of yesteryear no longer serve a purpose, and as you call out, have closed as a result.
Which is all well and good, I guess, but some segment of the population still wish that there were third spaces for them to exist in. Trouble is that they've never been able to find anything as compelling as alcohol used to be across large swaths of the population, making a different kind of third space of the same scale a complete no-go. Trying to salvage the remaining alcohol-centric third places is the only path they can see to try and relive that glory.
Of course there are plenty of alcohol-free (or at least not alcohol focused) third spaces that revolve around niche interests, but these are generally not seen as a good fit for those who don't have that particular niche interest. Alcohol was historically so successful as the foundation for a third space because, once upon a time, nearly everyone was interested in it, bringing everyone in the door.
Again, with all due respect, I’m not seeing how my comment is pushing a “life choice” on anyone, and the movement to restrict alcohol consumption equally qualifies as pushing a life choice on someone.
Commercial pubs have existed for hundreds of year. But drinking doesn’t have to be commercial. In Berlin where I live there’s a non-profit hacker space that has a bar with at-cost drinks. It’s also perfectly legal to buy a beer and sit in the park. And of course, nothing is better than having friends over for a wine tasting.
The book "Drunk: How We Sipped, Danced, and Stumbled Our Way to Civilization" would be a good read for you, should you wish to consider alternative viewpoints.
--------
Distilling what I remember about an entire book I read a couple years ago into a HN comment is difficult, but one of the more salient notes from it is this: Adult humans are naturally suspicious of others and slow to trust, particularly those they have no existing points of connection to. In contrast - children have much lower inhibitions in this sense and are much better at this.
Alcohol, in moderation, is one of the most effective tools in humanity's arsenal to more easily socialize with and create trust with total strangers.
The "reduction of inhibitions" we are all aware of in terms of being a risk of making negative choices, also serves to greatly reduce inhibition of the average adult to new interactions and experiences.
It is difficult to achieve this result in adults otherwise, especially in terms of a single activity with low investment required in time, money, facilities, and commitment.
--------
It is likely that as we transitioned from a society where adult encounters with total strangers were rare (tribal/village) to common (urban) that alcohol played a pretty significant role in creating the social cohesion for it.
It is not at all clear that we have found some successful alternative to this, and we may well find that even with all the documented downsides of it, we're worse off as a society for moving away from it.
-----
Again, this is my recollection of a book I read a couple years back - don't take this word for word. I will also note that it's not all rosy and has some thoughts on the types of consumption we should probably discourage as well and the general risk/reward of alcohol in society.
Alcohol doesn't create social cohesion chemically. This is a learned effect - there are societies where they had different beliefs about alcohol, and there it doesn't have this effect. This is a really old finding of anthropology. (Of course, in today's global world, beliefs about alcohol get homogenized, so there are ever fewer of societies where they have diverging beliefs about alcohol effects.)
Moreover, it seems likely to me that just like the "relaxing" effect of nicotine, this advantage is "stolen" from daily sober life. If we as a society agree to judge each other less harshly when we're drink, I think we will just naturally judge each other more harshly when we're sober.
However, unlike with nicotine, where the effect is physical and individual (you relax when you get nicotine because you get stressed by physical addiction when you don't), for alcohol it's social and collective. You suffer the negative effect (social pressure to basically be more uptight in everyday sober life) whether you participate or not.
Encouraging the creation of new housing is the way to go. One thought— what percentage of new home purchases are made by large investors and is it growing? This seems like the most important metric to look at rather than existing ownership.
This is a good point. The major issue I see is the BBC is funded by taxpayers through government-mandated contributions, whereas Fox News is a private company.
Also, shouldn't EU Parliament web browsers follow the same standards as the EU requires of Google-- i.e. users are prompted to choose a search engine after installation?
reply