People should be suspicious of statements regardless of tone. Conmen, hackers, cult members, job applicants, and AIs are all trying to trick people who only listen to tone.
It's also not really necessary a lot of the time. If some random person online confidently says that the newest tesla uses an engine which contains ball bearings made in Indonesia by child slaves, I don't have to spend the time to doubt and analyze that because it doesn't impact me personally. I'd only ever need to take the time to double check that if I were going to buy a tesla or before I went and spread that information around as if it were fact. How true or false it is doesn't affect my life in any way. It can just be something a random person said online and I can treat it as such.
Whenever you see information that sounds like it could be extremely important to you and your situation (and when being wrong could really hurt you) then no matter how authoritatively the information was delivered that's really when you should invest the time to verify it. Much of the time that investment is just a quick internet search anyway.
Unfortunately, due to budget cuts, we could not afford to vanquish all of the antiques in the architecture. We do have an infinite spell of Ben Gay, however....
As with many things, it becomes easier with practise. Also, you can pace accordingly: do I quickly read 10 articles today, or pick 2 and peruse them in depth?
The mainboard on my Framework died, randomly. They replaced it, (almost) no questions asked. Shipped me a replacement, and I was able to replace it myself in fifteen minutes.
Speak with your dollars. Even though I was unhappy that the device was broken, my next laptop will probably be a framework. Although I would love if they started selling replacement chassis, mine is bent (that was my own fault).
Which part of your chassis is bent? They sell both top[0] and bottom[1] cover portions, as well as the input cover[2], which I think covers all the chassis
Race to the bottom. No reputation of quality => can’t raise price => cutting costs beyond the red line => mishaps => no reputation of quality => …
Cf Apple who charge an arm and a leg for anything above the base config (which admittedly is tight but still usable) because people trust them to not pull such dumb moves.
They really do for extras. The base config is IMHO on the contrary best price/experience ratio available on the market even including the subpar macOS.
I've worked with many engineers from HP. They were NOT incompetent. What they did describe though was a culture of firefighting and micromanagement complaining there was no opportunity to drive systemic improvement.
Lack of adequate testing probably due to rushed schedules, insufficient infrastructure, and perhaps poor release practices because management celebrates firefighting as it's the easiest way to show "business impact."
You can even wipe the entire SSD on a mac and STILL you have the ability to reinstall macOS without putting in any disc or USB stick. It's just always there waiting
This is almost correct. For the new Apple silicon machines you do need a second working Apple computer and cable in order to do a DFU if you completely wipe the SSD.
You can also waltz into an Apple store to have it done if you don’t have access to any other machines.
And here the EU is mandating bad AI like Facewatcher. Do any of these regulations do a single thing to defend against or prevent these kinds of AI-based-governance legal assaults? I highly doubt it.
> The EU is about to swing politically quite far to the right in a couple of weeks time. Chat control is just the beginning.
Not that I disagree with you but two things... First chat control is put in place by regular political parties, not far-right ones. Then it's the regular parties, by trampling with their boots on the face of EU citizens, imposing them things they didn't ask for, that made EU citizens decide to vote far-right. I don't know if the far-right is going to win but many of those who are going to vote far-right are going to do it because they've seen tens of millions of african and middle-eastern refugees imposed on to them. We're talking about a sizeable percentage of the entire EU population now being composed of refugees, arriving illegally in the EU (for the first time ever in 2024 there are going to be more refugees coming in in a year than babies born from EU parents).
Many in the EU simply cannot stand anymore to see their countries becoming third-world countries in a timeframe of mere years.
Right, it's EU parents or refugee parents. Nobody else lives here like actual, highly qualified people that countries like Germany are begging to import before all the "natives" retire.
Full disclosure: I am a migrant internal to Europe(Scandinavia > Switzerland). My wife is an indian national with a University degree.
I am personally pretty pro migration.
But who is doing this "begging"? I doubt it's the working classes of Europe. More concrete, I suspect this "begging" is done by the owning class so they can have cheaper labor for their industries. To the working man of Europe, it seems to me the current migration scheme is a net loss.
the government is begging, because birth rates don't sustain the population which is aging out, and if you want to keep your economy in those conditions you either bring in people, or encourage reproduction (which has a lag).
or let your economy shrink and don't complain when things are worse than they were when you were a kid. you can't have your cake and eat it too.
edit: all of this is beside the point anyway - my point was there exists a way to legally live here, contribute to the society, yet not be an EU citizen that the person above completely forgot about.
As for cheaper labour - i'm not sure for most companies they end up with cheap labour exclusively from refugees, you can find cheap labour from within the EU as well.
>highly qualified people that countries like Germany are begging to import
Begging isn't enough to get you the best people. You need to pay them well first since "begging" doesn't pay rent. You also need to respect them and give them a high status in society, not treat them like second hand citizens because they don't speak your language well enough and are struggling to navigate your (often discriminatory) bureaucracy.
Yeah… not good. Particularly for a political organisation set up to counter and repair the damage caused by fascism. On both sides of the political spectrum, politicians act as if society simply doesn’t exist. Plus even if it’s not far right, it’s moving rightward as a response to the overarching and opaque system of governance that has been put in place that common people cannot do anything about. It’s one of the primary reasons for Brexit, and in that case the EU chose to see it as simply “a British problem” rather than taking pause to think whether there are serious systemic flaws in the EU that contributed to it happening. So now, as usual, Britain is doing the exact opposite to the rest of Europe and about to turn left wing and socialist for at least a decade, and staying out of the fight that will eventually erupt inside the EU, in order to be the ultimate peace keeper who’s job it is to resolve it.
Censorship and monitoring is not something I would attribute to the right within the last 10-15 years. In the US, things like the Patriot Act are bipartisan. Otherwise, things regarding moderation/censorship/tracking tend to have far more favorability among the modern left leaning governments.
I was already looking for how to get out of the UK with the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, before the Brexit referendum, owing to glaring deficiencies such as the Welsh Ambulance Service being on the list of government agencies which have the right to access, without a warrant, the preceding six months of internet connection records for anyone who isn't a lawyer or a Member of Parliament.
The evidence given to the committee had a different, but equally relevant, example about how completely pointless the entire concept was for their stated goal.
Something like:
Govt.: "Imagine a teenager goes missing, we can use these records to find if they were posting on Twitter!"
Expert testimony: "The way these things work, their phones will connect to Twitter hundreds of times each day even if the person themselves doesn't."
The government may well be dumb enough that you were correct to write:
> the person
But the assumption of their incompetence is only wise when asking if they'll do something you want, not if asking if they'll do something you hate.
The EU is pretty weird ideologically I think. It somehow manages to neutrally combine every ideological position into one while cancelling them out somehow. It’s like centrist, communist, and strangely fascist while being warmly benign and benevolent all at the same time. But beyond this, it’s clear that its only ideological position has become “more EU power centred on opaque bodies in Brussels, whatever it is we just need more EU. We are blind to anything that is outside of that. Speak to the unelected president of Europe if you don’t like it”.
GDPR would be fine if they had a limits for small businesses. As written, startup founders don't have the resources to comply, so they often end up blocking all of Europe.
A lot of times, it's not even spying on users. It's not wanting to put in the time and effort to determine if you are in compliance or not. So you block all of Europe and you get around to it if you ever have the resources or care. You might have been in compliance the whole time, but why chance it when IP blocking is easy. That's basically every local US newspaper right after the GDPR passed. Hell, I've worked for companies where I literally know we're not tracking users and we're pretty secure, but we block the EU because no one has the time to check if there was something specific we needed to do. My current company had to rarchitect their entire to deployment pipeline specifically for the EU, not because we changed literally anything, but the laywers found that there was about our cloud host provider that the GDPR disallowed because it was hosted on US soil. We have 1 EU client. I assume if they weren't so big we would have dropped their contract.
My wife and I run a small (2 person) business in the EU. The largest hurdle was finding a hosting provider (VPS) that wouldn't transfer data outside the EU so we wouldn't have to add SCCs to our privacy policy. As a business owner, I'd say the balance is still positive, it forces some self-reflection on data gathering practices.
Not sure about the "hosted on US soil" part, if you are a US company, the data gets transfered anyway when you view it.
Why do you think not being willing to put resources to comply to rules equals to intentionally "spying on their users"? How come you think the rules assert that businesses are not able to spy on their users without their consent? You should better look what's inside the law's box instead of just looking at the packaging.
The value data has varies a lot... Something like behavioural targeting data for marketing is probably inconsequential. But what about health care or financial information? Those could have actual larger impact. And they could be handled by pretty small business.. It is easier to give generic guidelines than to specify each sector separately.
If you're too stupid to handle a simple "do not track, write down that you do not track, do not sell your users to others" policy, I have bad things to say about validity of the rest of your startup.
Guys just pick a fun project and apply. If you get in then you get to build a fun project really fast. If not, then just have fun building your project.
