Wallets usually belong to real people with lives. We can empathize with them. Companies are not people. And they also don't and can't empathize with you.
>Wallets usually belong to real people with lives.
So does data ? it belongs to real people.
I would imagine baseten's customers and eventually their end-users[1] were also grateful that their data was not compromised here and the disclosure was responsible.
[1] There is a pretty good chance you and I could be using services who are using baseten
"and can't empathize with you" - I don't really understand why such a perception of companies has been regurgitated and reinforced so much in US public, to the point where it's a blank excuse from ever expecting such a thing from a company. It's not true that it can't. The only reason to keep repeating that kind of worldview is to absolve companies behaving in shitty, toxic or downright evil ways.
The law doesn't say companies MUST choose the most profitable choice at every turn, and even explicitly allows for good treatment of customers, community, employees etc as a viable business strategy (even if it's sad that it must be justified in that way).
I think the only misleading part of this situation is your naive and self-centered definition of "trust", and the assumption that so many others think similarly enough that they need to be warned.
I trust a business to fulfill their obligations as stated in writing for the money paid. I do not trust them in any other way. Nobody should "trust" or depend on undefined behavior. Common sense can only ever be as common as you expect.
I agree that this notion that companies make these decisions is bad, bad on the grounds that it's people working for those companies that make the decisions, they hide themselves away, but the company itself isn't doing anything - is always a human making the decision
I think the point is that companies are purely legal entities, and as such, cannot feel, much less empathize, simply by virtue of them not being living things
That's nonsense. "Companies" are not something non-human, they are run by humans, who do feel, empathize, and are living beings. Without these living-being humans, there would simply be no "company".
Now how those humans that run the company behave is another thing - they are free to be greedy assholes, and a lot of them are, and some of them aren't - but that's still a human thing.
Yes, they are not humans. They are not even living creatures. They are mostly-legal entities mostly for the purpose of contracting with humans or other legal entities.
> they are run by humans, who do feel, empathize, and are living beings
This is usually true, but it is orthogonal to whether the company (a legal entity) itself is a biologically living creature, which is the only thing capable of feeling*. To put a point on it: my lawnmower is also run by humans, but it does not have empathy for any grass or people that gets in its way. It mostly just goes where it is steered. A company is like that, except with less touching grass.
* — unless you want to argue semantics about what "feeling" means, even though the discussion is about "feeling" and "empathy" in the way humans experience it, and how that form of "empathy" does not exist for a nonliving legal entity which may or may not employ any actual humans
Companies are 100% people. The fact that companies, their CEOs, and employees are not treated like people is exactly reason why humanity is in the shitshow show it is right now.
> I live in a country with good consumer protection laws. I wish the rest of the world would catch up.
What country allows people to return products made years ago simply because they no longer want them? I might have an idea there. My EU country allows only 14 days to return things for no reason.
And also yes, it matters what product promises.
Otherwise I can buy the game when some cheat works and when cheat stops working (due to anticheat improvement) demand refund, because it worked one way before, and now it doesn't. Broken product, cheating must be protected by laws.
> What country allows people to return products made years ago simply because they no longer want them?
None that I know of. This is a mischaracterisation of what I wrote.
> And also yes, it matters what product promises. Otherwise I can buy the game when some cheat works and when cheat stops working (due to anticheat improvement) demand refund, because it worked one way before, and now it doesn't. Broken product, cheating must be protected by laws.
If the game doesn't provide a way to roll back to a previous patch, nor allows you to use said cheat (or whatever other additional software for that matter) while running on your own server, then yes, you should be able to get a refund. The product changed from under you, and might now have a fault which prevents you from using it as you (the customer) intended.
If you can roll back and set up your own server, then you still have the complete product you actually bought, with no faults. If the company changes the product from under you, they should be on the hook if that introduces any faults for any users out there.
Gameplay on the company servers is subject to the EULA, most of which ban cheating, which is one of the few reasonable rules they tend to add to those things. In that case, that use case is specifically disallowed, so there's no argument to be made that the game has a fault if a cheat gets patched into extinction. You should however still be able to play using the old patch on your own server. The fact that you can play on your own server and cheat doesn't automatically mean you can do the same on random servers.
Still user's problem if they manage or not manage to run the game through whatever translation and emulation layers they have instead of using official system requirements.
If the developer actively points out that they made changes so the software works on a specific platform and then actively disabled support for that platform later, I think people that can’t use the software anymore should get a refund.
I don't think this is accurate. Easy Anti-Cheat has supported Linux for a long time, many years before this. I doubt they were years and years out of date, updated, and allowing Linux was turned on by default in the new version. What they likely mean is they ticked the box in this game update to let it run on Linux.
Why would they specifically mention the Steam Deck? EAC doesn't have separate flags for Linux and Steam Deck. It's almost certain they intentionally allowed it to run on Linux. They call out Steam Deck by name because it is a popular handheld that has greatly increased the # of Linux users, not because an EAC update allowed it to work by chance.
And it's still not an active support decision. They allowed it - but it's your business. Whenever people gets problems or successes running through Proton, this is never a publisher's issue.
.. that must have been some atrocious telemetry data correlating cheaters and Linux. I wish they’d released a report on it — I mean, fuck Ubisoft, but at least we’d have data to argue about rather than this copout of a release note from them.
Games use keydown because it is more responsive and control responsiveness is vital to dynamic gameplay feeling good. There are some exceptions - if action can be charged, then it is on keydown. And then on gamepad sometimes actions are on release when developer has too many actions and not enough buttons, so it can be keyup vs hold.
> People not in Japan/Singapore/Korea/China should experience what a proper transit card done looks like.
In Prague city transit does not have limiting gates. If you bought unlimited ticket, you just walk in bus/tram/metro and that is it. No touching, scanning, showing, nothing. Maybe once a month (or even rarer) you might encounter a patrolling controller who would ask you to show your ticket, but that's it.
In Vienna they don't have gates at all or even much indication where gates supposed to be. My first visit I accidentally didn't pay for my ticket - I'm used to ticket machines being near the gates but I couldn't spot any. I also arrived on a train so I thought that since there was no gates or visible ticket machines between train and subway, maybe my train ticket is valid for a subway trip (happens in some places) but it was not the case.
And that's the difference. IIRC, you have to periodically top up your Suica card with money which then gets deducted from the balance each time you use it.
In Europe, there is no such thing - sure, you can buy a lot of single ride tickets and then use them when you need to, but you have to stamp the ticket when you start each ride, which does seem a little more inconvenient.
I don't think it's fair to conflagrate "Europe" as a single entity. From what I'm reading and my distant recollection:
- In London you top up your Oyster card and pay a fare according to the zone your travelling to. Metro is gated.
- In Paris your load up tickets in your Navigo pass and pay a flat rate every time you take the metro or RER. It's also gated.
- In most (all ?) Swiss cities you don't have any card to charge and have to get a ticket for every travel (like in London your fare amount depends is zone dependent); however there's an app that let you get your location at the start of your travel and end of your travel and automatically charges you the correct fare. There are no gates.
There are no gates anywhere in Switzerland, but one will encounter patrollers much more frequently in the trains (seldom in the trams/buses). I was flabbergasted by the low-trust look of the 2.5-meters high gates in the Paris subway
The European public transport system is not some centralised system that should be generalised like this.
The system in the Netherlands has worked like Suica for years (but without the extremely fast card reading unfortunately). You simply tap on with your public transport card or bank/credit card and tap out when you get off. Subscriptions, automatic/manual top ups, it's all possible.
I guess this is worth an explanation: in many European intra-city subways/trams, you're supposed to buy a ticket and then insert it into a "validator" machine that stamps current time. The validator is around where ticket gates would be, but much fewer in numbers, installed on random locations or on railings. Being on a train without the stamped ticket is equivalent to jumping a fence.
A lot of European folks seem to have positive experiences with the validator system as something convenient, less intrusive and high bandwidth, overall superior, but personally I doubt it scales out to scale and transit models of places like Shinjuku. Most rides in Tokyo commuter rails are point to point and Japanese commuters go through gate like a marching army, so it means temporary riders has to disrupt the march to get to the validator, and also a single validator in the middle of the gate area isn't going to meet demands but increasing the number of the machines kills the benefits.
btw: JRE is actually doing experiments with more modernized touch-free gates, one based on facial recognition a la Minority Report, and another based on UWB radio gadget added to phones. It is speculated that UWB is likely the intended path forward.
In London you can use a contactless (UK) bank card, and it works just like the "Osyter Card". I think that started around 2016. For journeys on the TFL network you should get billed the lowest fare, as long as you touch at the right points when changing.
To me the idea of working on (non-docked) laptop always seemed like an idea that you would do only if there is no other possible way.
Screen is small and is only one.
Ergonomics is entirely messed up. Either your screen is too low, or your keyboard is too high. Keyboards are non-ergonomic and have to be made with compromises due to height limits. Touchpad instead of mouse/trackball is compromise for many - and also stuck at one position.
And yet they have somehow spread despite number of people going on business trips not really increasing.
You can dock your laptop at work, then dock it at home, take it with you to a meeting room at work to browse supplemental materials and/or project your screen n the meeting, and use it for the occasional trip (like using it on the train to work).
It's not like you have to be on a plane for the portability to be useful.
I think the point of OP is that while laptops are fine for business trips, tethered usage is superior. My setup is a laptop. Both at home and as work I have a solid desk with an ergonomic chair. On the desk are thunderbolt docks, the docks have hooked the keyboard I like, 2 monitors on mobile stands. And that's it. I have most the advantage of a desktop while using the same machine. One cable to unplug. Super nifty.
Still, being able to take you laptop to a meeting to either project, or to look up related material to catch up and clarify before making a point in a meeting etc. is invaluable (no, working at a laptop during a meeting doesn't mean you're not paying attention, it often means you're cross-referencing discussions with other data live).
It sounds like you don't code much in bed or with your feet up.
A laptop is a distinct tool from a desktop and if you try to use it like a desktop, I agree it is a terrible substitute. Personally I find laptops vastly more ergonomic than a desktop, but I never program with my feet on the ground.
Can you share more about your setup? I sort of hate my laptop. I carry a ridiculously overpowered phone around with me all the time, though, so the dream is just to dock it at home or at work and just use that. It’s a shame that Apple does not make this a better experience with iPhones; I would happily shell out for the most expensive iPhone if it were a real desktop replacement. Being able to develop (for real, with a terminal) is a must though.
Android phone with termux and all the usual Linux tools. I use vim to write code, and I type with the touch screen. Not exactly peak ergonomics, but it works. For me, ability to code while lying down comfortably beats having a physical keyboard and bigger screen.
Set up wireguard in my router and now I've got remote access into my LAN. My laptop has essentially become a Linux server. I just ssh in from the phone and write code. Can also easily launch and use codex.
I have been using docking stations since 2006, and apparently if I want to buy a serious desktop that doesn't look like car tuning in a box, I have to build it myself, given the available configurations on ready to go desktops.
I'm not sure who that line is supposed to impress. Gamers focusing on graphically demanding AAA games would laugh at this. People who don't game much probably won't know whether this is good or not.
So? Will major AI players introduce universal healthcare in US? Or is it coming along with AGI which is why it should be the most important to every citizen? Or maybe EU citizens should all band together and stop being lazy and go to having 0 mandatory vacation days?
Reminds of me very old USSR joke which was basically "we have rockets in space, and don't have sausages in stores".
> So? Will major AI players introduce universal healthcare in US?
We don't want universal healthcare, 6-month to one-year waits for routine operations, having to beg doctors for prescriptions, massive tax hikes to pay for all of that while disincentivizing people from working and keeping jobs.
If you're unhappy with the wait time then get private insurance and go to a private doctor, just like you would in the US. But if you're too poor for that, at least you get something in six to twelve months instead of nothing or bankruptcy. And your insurance will be much much less because you're getting most of what you need publicly. Your US insurance is in the order of three to five times as much as private insurance in the EU, so your taxes are lower, but your costs are too.
The real problem always seems to be that universal health care would leave rich Americans worse off (higher taxes), would likely be about a wash for most middle earners (higher taxes, but none/less health care costs), but would leave the poor significantly better off (who are totally stiffed in the US at the moment).
So, by saying you don't want universal health care you're effectively saying that you're rich enough that you don't care about it, and you don't want poor people to be able to get health care at all, and if some die early or go bankrupt at least it isn't your problem.
> But if you're too poor for that, at least you get something in six to twelve months instead of nothing or bankruptcy.
Depends on the country, Australia triages so that routine, mundane, non life threatening procedures might take six months (or less) - but even a flat broke unemployed person needing an emergency stent placement in their heart gets that damn near over night with follow up hospital watch and after therapy at no cost (might get a $500 ambulance bill, but that's another can of worms - St John's Ambulance coverage is cheap, supports a worthy cause, and prevents that surprise charge).
I think every national health service does something similar (minus the ambulance fee generally), but that might be too incredible for the Americans to believe?
Hard to believe or tainted with the stench of socialist communist welfare grifters as I read it.
From my PoV it reduces stress on society, increases a sense of well being, results in lesser serious crime and anti social behaviour, etc. and means I'm likely getting better value for my tax dollars than I might in the US.
If you want to talk about terrible regulation, the US health insurance system is a great example.
A single payer insurance system would be more rational vs choosing the worst of both worlds, which the US built through layers and layers of political compromise. The private alternative is a no-go politically in the western world so why not just commit to doing it properly?
Although of course that would require US states (more so than federal) to be more fiscally conservative, so the tax increase wouldn't be as burdensome... which might also be a no-go.
reply