I'm even more outside the loop, what happens if on my personal blog I don't have any analytics and don't do any metering so I have no idea how many visitors I get?
The way these kinds of fonts work is that you don't host the font, they do. You link the font licence you purchased through your HTML code (or CSS, depending on how the foundry recommends you to apply the font) with a specific font URL that they provide you, which will contain unique identifiers. Then they can track how often the font gets loaded.
If your site really kicks off and you max out those visits per month (that they track on their end), they either start charging you the higher tier, cut off loading your font, or send you stern emails.
There is no expectation that you share your analytics with a type foundry.
No, "honor system" is very frequently used and understood to refer to a system where there are explicit rules but where the rules are not enforced via active surveillance.
It sounds like you want to make a judgement call: "they're too small to enforce this license agreement," so you get to pretend it's an honor system and not a license agreement.
Not to take away from your fantastic explanation but I should note that’s not universal. There are foundries that operate on an honor basis and let you self host the font too.
What you describe is how Google Fonts handles this if you choose to use the fonts directly from Google's servers. This is a violation of GDPR. You can also download them and host them yourself, to comply with data protection laws.
This is a good thing to point people at when they claim that GDPR is simple to implement. This legal interpretation is totally reasonable but it’s probably not what most developers would expect.
The law itself is very clear and concise so it is straightforward to find that this is not only a reasonable interpretation but right there in the law.
Regardless, my point is just that there are implications of the GDPR that a lot of engineers are probably not aware of. It makes sense that sending your traffic to Google for fonts violates GDPR. But as an engineer, this is just a CDN. I would not have considered this a violation of GDPR without seeing someone else point it out.
I had a similar experience, I was a heavy Duolingo user between 2014 and 2016 (I used it for Spanish) and I still believe that back then it was actually a pretty good way to learn the basics and I had learnt enough to be able to get by in Spain, have casual conversations with people, even hang out with a group of natives (but I also was a member of a few WhatsApp groups with Spanish people so I had a bit more practice).
Then they dumbed down the phone app and soon enough they did a similar thing with the website. Tips & Notes section was gone (or they kept it but removed a lot of information? can't remember), the tree-style courses were gone and replaced with some kind of a Path, the exercises became too easy and they'd make you translate from Spanish to English most of the time, which is much easier than the other way around. Then they removed the ability to type with your keyboard, added the "match the word pairs" exercise (which sucks if you use a keyboard and yes, I know you can try to use the numbers on your keyboard), all of which made the whole experience even worse and less effective.
I lost my streak somewhere in the middle of this enshittification process and I've never really gotten back to using the site, other than maybe checking once a year whether it's still shitty (and it always is).
In my opinion, back in 2014 Doulingo used to be a learning website with some gamification aspect that made the learning process a bit easier and more entertaining. Now it's just a gaming app which tries to give you a false sense of learning a language but in reality you aren't learning anything. Just a waste of time.
When I try to zoom in (by pinching the touchpad) on one of the charts at the bottom of the site, Firefox crashes. I guess there are too many pixels in the black bar :)
After looking at the photo, and before actually reading the post, I was sure it was a switch for retrofitted fog lights - they are not required in the US and you must to have them in Europe in order to pass MOT.
I have an almost identical looking switch in my Mustang (which I imported from America) and it does exactly that - turns the fog lights on and off :)
If it's 1/2g sugar per Tic Tac and a serving is two Tic Tacs, then we're talking about 4 calories. That's not significant, is it? Just about anything else you eat probably differs from the label by more than 4 cal.
As far as I know, in the US you can politely decline a phone search if you are a US citizen. If you're a foreign tourist your only choice is either to allow the search or be denied entry to the Land of Freedom™
At the US international border, no, even US citizens can’t prevent the phone search regardless of whether or not they consent. They can however usually decline to give a PIN, passcode, or password or to assist in unlocking the phone by entering such a credential, and they can’t be refused entry to the US. However, CBP can then temporarily seize the phone to perform a more comprehensive attempt at searching it. Getting the phone back later may be a hassle.
Additionally, pissing off CBP may lead to extended delays, luggage searching, and questioning to see if they can find another legally valid reason to punish you for annoying them. And maybe they might revoke trusted traveler program membership due to no longer seeing you as a low-risk traveler. But indeed, they will not finally refuse entry to a citizen.
There are rarer cases where the US government can insist on your cooperation in getting past a PIN, passcode, or password, such as if you show them that an incriminating document exists on your phone and then lock the phone before they can collect the evidence.
And while the exact boundary of the constitutional protections regarding face or fingerprint unlock is not authoritatively settled nationwide in the courts, it’s very likely weaker than for information you hold in your mind like a password.
I strongly suspect CBP can constitutionally require a US citizen entering at an international port of entry to assist with fingerprint or face unlock, though I admit I don’t know how physically they can force the matter if the person refuses. It wouldn’t surprise me if that would be grounds for arrest under at least some circumstances (maybe not all).
While I was born after 9/11, I'm think I've heard that these unprecedented powers were given to CBP (and other border agencies around the world) after that event.
Most people crossing any border face little friction like this, but when you dig in and see what border agents are allowed to do, it gets a bit unnerving. Especially so for the US, the self-proclaimed land of the free.
Consider this - the CBP is granted wide-reaching powers that can supersede what actual police are allowed to do. They're allowed to racially profile, discriminate, search or detain anyone for any reason - citizen or not. Search warrants aren't required. Punishments like refusing foreigners entry for no reason or marking citizens to be additionally screened for the rest of their life can't be contested and are absolute. They are insulated from being sued, and may not need to follow Freedom of Information requests (not sure if this was reverted or not). They can do any of this within 100 miles of any external US borders - a.k.a. most major cities in the country. You don't actually need to be crossing or have crossed a border to be held up. Freedom!
The more you read into it, the more it seems that the federal US government has written a black check in terms of what some people are allowed to do. In the vast majority of cases, border guards are reasonable and don't overstep any boundaries - but I'm confused at why Americans, with the culture of valuing individual freedoms over all, aren't concerned with the hypothetical consequences these powers provide.
> I'm confused at why Americans, with the culture of valuing individual freedoms over all, aren't concerned with the hypothetical consequences these powers provide.
I don't think this is as much of a "gotcha" it seems to be. People have all kinds of theoretical beliefs that they routinely violate in practice. It's just part of being human.
The way things like this are supposed to work in the real messy human world is that we encode these "freedoms"/rights into a constitution. We then have a judicial branch that protects these rights, irrespective of individual human inconsistency/hypocrisy. For border searches we have the relevant rights in the US constitution already. The problem is that the judicial branch has incorrectly ruled that protections like the 4th amendment don't apply at the border.
>they can't otherwise punish you for refusing to give them your password.
Except of course by denying you entry, marking you in some "no fly" blacklist, and other ways that are not oficially "punishments", but are very much so in practice...
> far as I know, in the US you can politely decline a phone search if you are a US citizen
Same with being filmed at the airport. Last time I passed through US airports there were signs that you're monitored and it goes to blah blah database, and that if you're a US citizen, you can request to be removed. If you're not, go fuck yourself and pray all your biometric data isn't stored at the cheapest possible vendor and about to be leaked.
