You're absolutely right. Which is why Michael Scott should have sued Garmin when he drove his car into a fucking lake in Dunder Mifflin Infinity.

In The Office episode "Dunder Mifflin Infinity", Michael Scott has a GPS installed in his car and drives it directly into a lake when it tells him to turn, despite Dwight's numerous warnings that they were about to drive into a lake.

According to this lawsuit, Michael Scott should have sued Garmin. Dumbest shit I've seen all day. These people sued Google because Google has a lot of money and will probably throw some at them to go away. What Google should do is mount a massive defense against the lawsuit and counter sue for legal fees to discourage this type of litigious crap rather than rewarding it with a settlement.

What if, instead of the bridge being washed out, there were a child standing in the middle of it and the vehicle killed the child? Who is responsible for ensuring that the road is free from hazards prior to the vehicle traveling across it? (hint: it sure as shit ain't Rand McNally)

Why did the street view vehicle not drive off the bridge?

Google Maps provides pathways between start and destination, and attempts to optimize said pathways to reduce travel time or gas or whichever options you select. Google Maps does NOT provide any warranty or guarantee that the pathway provide is free of obstacles or hazards.

Put it this way: if that bridge were okay but there were a child standing on it and this driver hit the child, who it at fault? Google Maps for telling the driver "here is a pathway to reach your destination"? Or the driver for failing to observe a driving hazard in the roadway? How about if Google had reports there was a child in the roadway? Would the driver have any fault for hitting the child then?

Google provides a feasible route. The driver is - and always has been - responsible for ensuring that their vehicle is operated in a safe manner, which includes watching for and appropriately reacting to hazards. If the bridge had washed out an hour ago, everyone would agree it was the driver's fault for failing to watch for a road hazard. If it had washed out a week ago, everyone would agree the driver should have been watching the road and taking appropriate action to avoid hazards. But a little more time passes and suddenly the driver is absolved of their responsibility and we find someone else (conveniently someone with deep pockets!) to blame?

Absurd bullshit. Mostly performance outrage by people who just hate Google. Love Google or hate Google; map providers do not take on any responsibility for the safe operation of motor vehicles.

There are companies who do "pay for play" Samba development. You pay 'em and tell them what you want in Samba, and they'll write it and upstream it for you.

Might be more than you want to pay though.

Samba does implement DFS, I wrote lots of the code for it and updated it recently :-).

I think you mean it doesn't implement DFS replication in the same way that Windows does.

Samba is only configured one way, via the smb.conf file.

Runtime control can be done via smbcontrol, but the base config file is always smb.conf.

When using local uses passwords *must* be separate as the SMB protocol and Linux passwords use completely different crypto.

Of course if you want synchronised passwords just add the Linux machine into the Active Directory Domain using Samba's winbind and users and passwords are identical of course.

Samba with an the iouring backend is as performant as an in-kernel version.

See Metze's talk this week at SNIA SDC 2023 in Freemont, CA. for details:

https://storagedeveloper.org/e...

This is completely incorrect.

Microsoft do not concern themselves with what SMB versions Samba supports when considering maintenance. At all.

As it should be IMHO. We match current versions of Windows and only keep SMB1 around in an "off-by-default" state for customers who can't or won't update old Windows / DOS clients.

You sure? Assume that current models are accurate and dark energy will expand the universe for infinite time. Further assume that QM is correct (it sure does seem to be) and everything at the quantum level is simply a probably field leaving literally anything possible - even if the vast majority of possibilities are indescribably improbable. Over the course of infinite time, quantum fluctuation will produce every possible configuration of matter and energy in the universe.

Kurzgesagt recently covered this concept here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

MORE taxes. MORE regulation. That'll solve it!

If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.

You also get individuals who suffer from Galactosemia and cannot be breastfed.

We don't redefine the taxonomy class Mammalia to account for the fact that these specific individual members don't conform to the normal definition. Nor do we suddenly pretend that humans aren't mammals because these individuals exist. Yes, you can get people with genetic abnormalities who develop in extremely unusual ways. That doesn't mean that male and female don't exist in nature. That doesn't mean that they don't have well understood, well defined differences. Reality continues to exist no matter how many words get redefined to make a microscopic minority feel slightly better about themselves.

Homo sapien is a bipedal species regardless of the microscopic minority born without two functioning legs. The exception doesn't make or unmake the rule. Let people identify and live as they like, but trying to force others to accept their feelings-based identity as biological reality is never going to work. Males are still male; females are still female. If someone who is biologically male lives a happier life living as a female, more power to them. Girls and women still also maintain a right to feel safe in their own spaces. Trying to force them to just accept a biological male with his penis out in a female locker room is going to create problems. Trying to force them to accept losing in sports to a biological male is going to create problems. Trying to silence them for expressing how they feel about these situations is unconscionable.

Nah, let's instead force all of human civilization to completely alter fundamental aspects of how it's structured including all human communication in order to make this microscopically small minority feel slightly better about themselves.

SOME biological functions.

SOME. But especially when started after puberty, these changes are relatively small and will never equal that of an average biological male. And the reverse (moving male to female) is even more true. Muscle mass and bone density changes are small when hormone therapy begins post puberty.

False. Skeletal structure is set during puberty. In particular, the pelvis shape is set in stone. You can give the person lethal doses of testosterone and not alter the pelvis to look like that of a male. You don't know what you're talking about.

100% false. Hormones regulate a subset of biological processes. If I give you the hormones of a bird, you will not take flight. You can make more significant changes if you're giving hormones to per-pubescent children, but that idea is highly controversial. Post-puberty, you can cause some level of soft tissue changes with hormones. You cannot change brain structure or skeletal structure. It just isn't a thing that's real.

And none of that is to say that a person who transitions doesn't deserve love, respect, support, safety, etc. They absolutely do. They deserve basic human dignity and compassion. But love, respect, and compassion do not include forcing others to accept bullshit claims about biology. It is Orwellian to attempt to force it.

There. Are. Four. Lights.