RaleyField
Take my euros goddarnit. Probably fights involving licensing agreements, or competition buying whole markets. I don't know if I should play at being an international spy and buy VPN just for Rogan or just pirate it out of the general principle.
They should move way to the other side on the scale of obviousness. Patents should be there to protect investments, not to stake out ideas bright and not so bright practitioners can stumble upon. In my opinion only ideas that necessitated a few man-years of work to be discovered should be patentable with onus on inventors to prove nonobviousness. I wouldn't be surprised if only pharma patents would survive only because expensive trials are needed.
Perhaps there is some boundary that shouldn't be crossed. You seem to be arguing there isn't.
Perhaps global and successful companies should exercise some due diligence and have a department that would control quality and firewall wacky ideas.
Perhaps we as CEs should hold companies responsible so that they stop perpetuating never ending shenanigans that this industry is known for. If even we don't boycott bad actors how can we expect normal users to do it.
> Does it mean you should condemn the company for the rest of eternity? Probably not.
If they showed some contrition perhaps? Name and fire entire chain of people responsible for it and donate a year of their net income to foreign FOSS organizations - in ideal world the company should've gone bankrupt, so the penance should be hard. Then I'd be more ready to believe them they would do better in the future.
It does, but those are "theoretical" in comparison to the degree Lenovo stooped on, it doesn't excuse Superfish at all. Windows isn't a free for all platform, yet.
> All this is moot, when you put Linux on it, which was the context we were talking about.
_That_ time. I'll copy a response I provided two months ago as Lenovo on HN has become a seriously annoying groundhog day for me:
I can't know that whatever harmful and irrational environment that led to Superfish in IdeaPad won't affect ThinkPads in the future. Even in the most generous understanding where IdeaPad is a different, physically separate branch of the company, and Superfish was an act of incompetence and not outright malice I can't be expected to keep up with the insider intrigue of the company to notice any changes that could negatively affect me. More importantly, leadership is still responsible for setting irrational environment that lead to Superfish, whatever that environment was. This is a multi-billion dollar company, there is no excuse for such incompetence.
The other day there was a thread on HN about which laptop is great for Linux. Tons of people recommended Lenovo, a guy from Redhat said it's even the brand that's used internally and I got a little depressed and smh. Nobody mentioned superfish. Those glorious days of Linux are gone.
Press alt and drag inside a window. Left mouse for moving, right for resizing.
It sends a message to other manufacturers: add malware at your own peril. I frankly consider it unethical to buy or recommend products from companies, like Lenovo, who demonstrated anti-consumer behavior because it perpetuates bad behavior as companies think consumers will forget or forgive them.
> ThinkPads never had that, and never would.
That is speculative. I can't know that whatever harmful and irrational environment that led to Superfish in IdeaPad won't affect ThinkPads in the future. Even in the most generous understanding where IdeaPad is a different, physically separate branch of the company, and Superfish was an act of incompetence and not outright malice I can't be expected to keep up with the insider intrigue of the company to notice any changes that could negatively affect me. More importantly, leadership is still responsible for setting irrational environment that lead to Superfish, whatever that environment was. This is a multi-billion dollar company, there is no excuse for such incompetence.
Not much in my book. The problem isn't Superfish, the problem is leadership that allowed it.
What about concerns of other people or do you mostly do inanimate objects or selfies?
I suspect there are many people like me who feel coerced into allowing our private life being stored in public clouds by other people without ever being explicitly asked for our consent. Worst, I feel in many situations it isn't easy to modify behavior of others because of the fear of appearing "needlessly fussy" and and because we value relationships with other people more than the abstract, intangible and hard to quantify concept of loss of privacy.
It was bullshit before too. This is nothing but another form of candlemaker's petition.[1] Why is welfare of corporations more important than free choice of consumers? Why not let consumers voluntarily decide where they want to take their business?
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/candle-makers-pe...
It becomes usability problem for your users when it becomes too burdensome for ISVs to port their software on your fractured platform. It the whole raison d'etre of technologies like snappy, flatpak or docker that now try to patch this problem.
Or, more personal, on this laptop I get shorter battery life (I have it plugged in most of the time so it's tolerable), sometimes it doesn't wake up so I have to always shut it down (tolerable) and bluetooth headset doesn't work (I use wired ones, so tolerable again).
Nowadays I run mostly Ubuntu but before this attitude used to be a big turn off for me. When things manifestly don't work but the partisan chorus is acting like Linux is the most perfect thing ever then it is really easy to walk back out of spite. I run Linux because it's the least bad OS _for me_, it's still pretty bad in so many ways.
> often better than Windows
And often not. My experience with Linux drivers has always been only "tolerable".
> KDE Plasma
It's functional. But its design language (if it has any) is by far my least favorite one. I'd rather use Windows than use KDE.
You accused me of being disingenuous. I'm sure your radical views irritate other people as well.
> minimization of suffering
Now I'm starting to think you are trolling. Me and others have pointed out that this is a egregiously nebulous thing to say. People who say that they stand for minimization of suffering are also the same type of people who say they are for all the things that are good without ever elucidating what their idea of good is. Pol Pot probably said he was for minimization of suffering.
> you are equivocating "[my] ability to proselytize [a worldview based on minimizing suffering] on HN and elsewhere" to someone else's "ability to spread" antisemitism, which is obviously and transparently disingenuous.
It's hard to play mental forensics of what went through your mind. I'm not. I'm not saying there's equivalency, I think you misunderstood me because you are under impression that you can control or predict what people will decide is an acceptable speech. If you could control that then of course sign me up for no antisemitizem and all the proselytization.
And to repeat, I merely stated that you probably don't trust us to be your moral authority and we reciprocally don't trust you to be moral authority for us.
Furthermore, realization that we can't agree on any moral authority is reflected in free speech protections and democratic system itself. Again, unfortunate side-effect of free speech laws is that we let people speak obscenities just as it's unfortunate side-effect that we let murderers go if we can't prove their crime beyond reasonable doubt.