BluescreenOfDeath
I made the swap after they forced Windows 7 update behavior to change. You used to be able to download updates but you got to choose when to install them. Then they changed it to either they’re on and fully automatic, or fully off.
At the time, I was running a computer repair company, and my work computer running Win7 was running a data recovery on an accidentally formatted drive for almost two days. After I had left and the program finished, Windows was all “Oh, the computer is idle now. Let me give you a 15 minute warning that I’m going to install updates and reboot if you don’t cancel”.
After the second time, I formatted my work computer. Shortly after, I did the same to my gaming PC. Haven’t looked back once.
Never ask a company to pick between the right thing and profit.
It’s fundamentally impossible for a publicly traded company not to choose profit over ‘The Right Thing’, fullstop. Shareholders feel that have a fundamental right to growth, and if Google’s CEO were to choose ‘The Right Thing’ over profit, the shareholders can oust them in favor of a CEO willing to choose profits.
Enshittification is where every public company ends up, because the line MUST go up, no other alternative is acceptable.
Even if law enforcement can get a warrant, unless there’s a backdoor in the encryption then the data stays private. That’s the whole point of encryption.
The fundamental problem is law enforcement feeling entitled to snoop on private communications with a warrant vs the inherent security flaw with making a backdoor in encrypted communications. The backdoor will eventually get exploited, either by reverse engineering/tinkering or someone leaking keys, and then encryption becomes useless. The only way encryption works is if the data can only be decrypted by one key.
Anyone else remember when TSA published a picture of the master key set for TSA approved luggage locks and people had modeled and printed replicas within hours?
As a single father of two girls, because Trump appointed judges to the Supreme Court who decided to repeal Roe vs Wade. Because he refused to accept the outcome of an election and maintains to this day that he is the duly elected President of the United States. Because he illegally interfered with military aid Congress had apportioned to Ukraine because Zelensky was unwilling to announce investigations into Hunter Biden. The man has lived his whole life with a silver spoon so far up his ass it tickles his tonsils, but he has you convinced he is on your side.
Trump is a corrupt authoritarian hack who only wants the power of the office, he doesn’t give a shit about anyone else.
But any criticism of Mango Mussolini is “Trump Derangement Syndrome” as if deep-throating his cock is the normal state of affairs and any dissent is treason.
Likely the only reason why the SC came down on this the way they did was because of the nebulous standing.
Generally, you can’t come to court without a realized injury. Meaning you’ve been actually hurt, not that you have the potential to be hurt. It’s the difference between arguing “This law may prevent me from getting a marriage certificate as a homosexual individual” and “I legally applied for a marriage license and was denied one”. Whether or not you think it’s a good idea, it reduces the case load of courts around the country.
The Mifepristone case was brought all the SC by a group of people who couldn’t show an actual injury. Their arguments all centered around “Some of the people we represent might be affected by the fact that Mifepristone is so flagrantly prescribed, and dealing with the fallout of an abortion goes against the beliefs of these specific people we represent”. And the SC rejected that on standing alone, because it would open the flood gates for all sorts of lawsuits. “My child is threatened by the manufacture of AR-15 rifles by X company because they’re used in school shootings!” etc.
That is the only reason why this case was decided the way it was. If you want to protect Women’s rights, you need to turn out in your local elections every chance you get.
Betty and Bob are in an unfortunate situation, but they’re taking a thing of value and charging money to cover all costs, and make a profit. The tenant is therefore paying the mortgage and all repair costs, and then even more to support what amounts to a leech.
It might be a good arrangement for Betty and Bob, but it makes living somewhere more expensive.
Which is the general point. I can be sympathetic to Betty and Bob, but landlords buying houses leaves less houses for everyone else for a ‘job’ that doesn’t add any real value to society. It just props up someone with the economic means to buy multiple houses and make them a living while hanging the rest of us out to dry.
So often just swapping the user agent from Firefox to Chrome makes these sites work flawlessly. So they’re putting in extra code to detect Firefox and serve a “we don’t support your browser” page when they could just… not. And if a user complains about X, they could say we don’t test on Firefox, try on Chrome.
That’s treating people as Humans. But in our capitalist hellscape, we aren’t people, we’re Consumers. We exist to provide money to companies, and they’re ever interested in finding more ways to make us give them money.
It’s not enough that you buy a TV, the manufacturer needs to have ads in it. They need the telemetry on what you watch, when you watch it, and for how long so they can make the ads more relevant. We can’t have you replacing your phone battery, so we’ll make it an internal component so when it goes bad you’re more likely to just get a new phone.
But we can’t pay people more, because that’s an expense.
The line must go up at all costs.
AFAIK, the unilateral nature of TOS/EULA agreements in the day of Software as a Service hasn’t been litigated. Which means there isn’t a court’s opinion on the scope or limits of a TOS/EULA and what changes can be made.
Currently, Adobe has the full force of contract law to initiate this change without any input from consumers because a case about this has never made it to the courts.
It’ll be interesting to see where this goes, but Adobe will likely backpedal on their language in the TOS before any case gets to a Judge because the last thing any company wants is for a TOS/EULA agreement to be fundamentally undermined by a court.