Back to Today's Deal

Crazy News Stories


Here’s the reason I’d say the punishment really wasn’t that too far off: he’s literally picking people off the streets to be the butt end of a joke when they’re desperate for any help they can get, and more importantly, his social media usage was FOUNDED on this “principle.” This may be the one edge case where a punishment over social media usage is completely deserved.

I don’t really have the details on the case, but if what I’ve read here is accurate, the entire event is just shameful in every regard.

EDIT: Okay, 20,000 Euros sounds like a bit much. I just hope that’s actually based on something (like, say, revenue from the channel); otherwise that does sound quite a bit excessive.


I would expect that includes the defendant’s court fees and such. But Spain may have something different that I am not familiar with.

Edit: next paragraph;
“Mr. Ren was found guilty of violating the moral integrity of the homeless man. He is unlikely to serve any time behind bars, however, as Spanish law normally allows sentences under two years for first-time offenders in nonviolent crimes to be suspended.”

And further down:
“But the judge noted that Mr. Ren had earned more than €2,000 from advertising revenues generated by the video, one of several he filmed in response to various challenges received from his followers.”

That would probably explain the fine. You’ve done it several times and earned x amount per video.


now this is fcn crazy

apparently russia wants/“can” ask corporations for user data unrelated to russian users/citizen? :thinking:
better not hope companies you use decide to comply or it’s gonna be data-mining heaven from worldwide users of XYZ… o.0
(and how the hell could corporations even consider to comply with something in russia that would then be somehow a violation of other countries privacy laws?)


Well of course they can ask, but unless they’re a Russian company, or have servers that stores said data in Russia, they have no reason to comply. Suppose Russia can threaten to block access to their site or services but as you said if they break privacy laws in every other company they’d hopefully be in greater troubles from doing that.


yea but that’s the point tho aint it
companies like tinder have already complied to be on the list, meaning they have agreed to start use/store on russian servers (according to that new russian interwebs bill) which seems crazy enough as is, so the next hurdle would just be to actually get the request for data hand over, and then see, "well dafuq you gonna do now Tinder/XYZ?"
like, is russia really such big market that companies, Tinder would rather comply with such bs, than just say no to whatever rubles they get -kinda imagining it can’t be the most profitable part of their slice of the app/interwebz world ?


Some people have gone to court in Brazil due to WhatsApp evidence.

The future is apps, and it seems like, more and more, our “personal” and “private” data is going to be used not only for Big Data and Big Money, but as evidence as well. :woman_shrugging:

I don’t really find your story crazy, but then again, Brazilian here.

Here’s some Brazilian lawyer discussing how this works here, just as reference:


When everyone’s paying attention to E3, some silly stuff like this makes me scratch my head a bit…


@YQMaoski That’s not only savage, but petty.

Not been excited for E3 myself - watching since a fav. streamer has been co-broadcasting. Lots of pretty new games out there. The only one really caught me was Ghostwire.



Cow burps mostly.


I’d say it’s mostly sloth farts


probably released too slowly for any major effect


I don’t know man, those tend to linger the most would be my guess



Humans are directly responsible for about 60 percent of global emissions of methane.

It’s our fault:

Humans have been producing methane for thousands of years, by clearing land with fires, raising cattle, and growing rice. Thanks to air bubbles trapped in ice cores taken from Antarctica, we know that the global average methane concentration in the atmosphere has nearly tripled in response.



Not super crazy or anything, but looks like WaPo just wrote an add for Mozilla.

The writer ran some “test” where they used each browser for a week and counted the cookies, didn’t go far into depth about what and how though, sounded very scientific.

Still the point made is reasonable, even if the entire article just comes off as an ad.


i really never understood how this kind of stuff is even legal, even if somewhat “innocuous” tracking…
imagine if you went into a physical retail store, and they had an employee follow you everywhere you went after just stepping foot inside their doors, -wouldn’t such actions be considered stalking/invasion of privacy?
why is basic digital privacy so much different that tracking is “fine” :thinking:
(then again i also find it weird companies are legally allowed to gather and sell your data, even despite if using their app/sites, so maybe i’m just the weird one this century) :man_shrugging:


Or imagine if the retail store had cameras hidden in the ceiling, pointed at every isle! That’s even worse than the employee following you because with the employee, you’d be able to see them; with the cameras, your every move in the store would be tracked without you even knowing about it! They probably wouldn’t even be courteous enough to put a sign out front saying “This store uses camera surveillance,” so you’d know to shop somewhere else. And of course if you ask why, they’d make up some nonsense about how the cameras are used to improve the end-user experience and deter “shoplifting,” or whatever.

I’m telling you: privacy is dead!


dafuq kind of unrelated counter argument is that?? :face_with_raised_eyebrow:
ofc surveillance/security monitoring in their OWN store is okay, :confounded:
the comparison was if they had an employee follow you everywhere after their store, just by stepping foot inside their doors -like cookies/trackers do
ie, walmart hires a stalker to follow you just by stepping foot inside the doors, you don’t go further in, don’t buy anything, but your own personal stalker now follows you to target, gamestop, the bank, post office, actual office, your mistress, your 3rd secret family, and the loo.
Then finishes up their weekend by reporting your activity to head office of Wallmart Spy inc division, that riffles through it, decides if they can use some, sends it to the marketing department so you can get a nice personalized discount book (-with missing coupons compared to your neighbour that didn’t step foot in the wallmart hallway to get tagged), and then sells everything off to whoever wish to pay for it.
^hence my lack of understanding why it’s so easily legal “digitally”, with how absurd it appears “irl”


@Gnuffi That personal stalker analogy is exactly how I feel when browsing Facebook and an ad comes up related to something I was just researching on Google. O_o