plagiarist

Unsurprising. I loved the tool but it was obviously time to drop it when they began pushing for logins.

We're worried about it connecting to a neighbor's unsecured network or some sort of unpublished mesh capability for exfiltrating your data and downloading ads.

A smart company would A/B test changes and choose based on lifetime value vs. average session value. The compaction is going to happen anyway, does idle compaction increase the length of a session or the amount of sessions per user?

Can something be both true and unprovable without being a self-referential Godel sentence? I assume most statements that aren't self-referential are independent, like the continuum hypothesis with ZFC.

I would never buy an appliance that requires a third-party server. Google cannot remove the value from a Zigbee or Z-Wave thermostat like this.

The average human post on reddit is a carbon-copied comment from 2011

No justification is required. Police visiting this person over completely legal public photography is an egregious violation of First Amendment rights.

I wish the ads were restricted to ad-supported media instead of arriving in the mail. I don't know what better evidence I need to avoid them than by how fucking aggressive they are about finding new suckers and offering money to help grease the slide into gambling addiction.

This is one of the reasons I would never purchase hardware from Meta. If I need a subscription or account to use my own hardware that will be a hard no.

Are we holding it wrong? Mine does the same godawful external library tests. When it is having a particularly stupid day it also tests language features. For example, checking that using a callback executes the code supplied in the callback (it does).

Google is probably unironically working on remote attestation for eye implants right now

I would also love for ubiquitous surveillance to be used for good, but what would happen in your scenario is ICE using the footage to hunt and kidnap people who "look" like undocumented immigrants.

What isn't? It is increasingly impossible to do anything without being monitored and tracked, and that data is aggregated more and more. Cars, TVs, random appliances...

At what age will you put the glasses away?

You say suspicion is warranted, you're still not only charging forward with this but also complaining about other people's perception of you doing so. You're not being left out, you're included in the narrative. You just don't like it.

I hope, for the kids' sake, in addition to normalizing the idea that it's okay for dad to be recording them without their awareness, you teach them that most people find the idea of strangers doing this to be creepy and distasteful (for good reason), so they need to be wary around Meta glasses despite seeing them as a quotidian thing.

I am not an expert but I am pretty sure changing a job is a "qualified life event" that allows an out-of-band change. I hate privatized insurance but I didn't think this thing in particular was a problem.

Two companies stole trillions of tokens worth of IP from Americans so of course the US government will step in and protect "their IP" from competitors

That's the point isn't it? You overpay a wealthy dude with connections to gain a node on nepotism graph.

Oh, SCOTUS doesn't radically reinterpret the Constitution in that direction. Or, perhaps maybe it does, but nobody's bought Clarence the right RV yet.

Well that one is the classic far-right talking point that overpaying to be denied healthcare is preferable to the bogeyman of "wait times." Their other popular talking point is that with private insurance you can choose which doctor explains that your coverage was denied.

Catastrophic events seem to wipe people out financially regardless of insurance status. I keep hearing of people divorcing so their former spouse can keep some assets while they are battling cancer. There's just no winning unless you never need care.

Heh. I hate having any attached cables, they're too easy to fray. But otherwise I am with you, I only buy wired headphones.

Occasionally mobs of hateful psychos will target individuals with harassment. There is absolutely not enough protection from unwanted messages, unwanted phone calls, false reports to SWAT teams, identity theft, who knows what else.

Simply remove protections and deal out massive fines to platforms hosting obviously fraudulent listings, they will figure out solutions overnight.

You are interested in providing something worth paying for. Other people are interested in maximizing ROI for ad spend.

It's glib, but allegedly they are losing money on those. Certainly compared to what they'd be getting with their usage-based pricing.

Unless you mean people are forgetting to use the maximum amount every month, or forgetting to cancel?

An assumption required to make capitalism work efficiently is that customers have meaningful choices. Trustbusting is one of the important roles of the government, if it were functional.

I love solutions like that. Like if you are splitting food, one person cuts and the other chooses.

It would probably improve my life that the internet dies, except there are no longer many third spaces. Those spaces that do exist are also recording my every movement anyway. As is my privately-owned vehicle that I took to get there.

I guess I am a 4A absolutist.

The original case is clear that that person's rights were violated. It certainly is reasonable for the officers to believe they could conduct a search in that case, so they should not have consequences. (Officers that do unreasonably violate rights should experience consequences, they currently don't.) But there's nothing in there curing the violation of rights.

It's so weird to me that this is possible. If that happened with other rights, it'd feel like, "oh, yeah, definitely these soldiers shouldn't have been allowed to live here. They do now, though, and will continue to. Sorry."