Thanks for admitting that you're shit.

It's a grift, taking advantage of a grieving person's desire for it not to be so final, for there to be hope of seeing their loved one again.

They all have cloud sync too, and in a pinch you can look up the password on your phone and type it in.

I get not bothering when it's a throwaway account, using the built in password manager is usually the path of least resistance.

I don't think it's just that people are bad at passwords, it's that they don't care. If their account gets compromised, it will probably hurt the service provider more than it will hurt them.

Gen Z are particularly sensitive to this, because they have noticed that most of the advice they get is bunk. If they are told to protect something like a password, they are more likely to evaluate if it actually matters to them to protect it, rather than just blindly following the advice.

That said it's a little surprising that password managers aren't having a bigger effect. All the major browsers offer to create and remember strong passwords for you.

Our government seems to mostly react to Facebook posts these days. I'm sure China, Russia, and others are all busy spamming Facebook in order to destabilize us.

The plant is over half a century old, and it was originally shut down supposedly because the state cut off the subsidies. It seems very marginal to restart it now, especially if they are relying on a single customer.

That's not actually a meaningful difference as far as antitrust law is concerned. With the possible exception of the monopoly being created by doing something illegal (which then becomes a separate violation on its own), it does not matter *how* a monopoly came to be, only that it is, and whether it causes harm to society, to customers, to other companies in the market, etc.

It's actually not. Any jacka** can buy a block of phone numbers and set up a trunk line. That's exactly why we have so much Caller ID fraud these days. I mean yes, ostensibly, but in practice, no.

Ah, but most phone companies these days don't even have a physical presence anywhere.

Entertainment monopolies have *lots* of government restraints. It really doesn't matter whether the company is an entertainment company or a toilet paper manufacturer. A monopoly is a monopoly, and subject to antitrust laws.

Except that email is surprisingly bad as a sharing medium, and 1000x as bad if you want to share large content like photos. But regardless, that's kind of moot.

Sure. None of that changes whether having basically one giant platform that almost everyone is on makes it difficult to impossible for any other company to meaningfully compete, though. And when your own platform buys another platform, that's where governments *do* start to have the right to deny a company from doing as it pleases.

Sure, they had to sell their stock, including the parts needed to make the machines. At that time they were also still at least assembling them.

IIci September 1989, Quadra 700 October 1991, in almost the same case. Two years, one month.

That statement was stupid, even absurd the first times that it was used — by the Reich wing. The entire reason I'm still using it when speaking to them is to rub their noses in how fucking stupid it was.

You're two steps behind me as usual, but at least you're getting there.

Insert Travolta looking around meme here. This is me, looking for fucks.

Anonymous Cowards, always stupiding up the comments.

We KNOW from survey data that people with trucks in North America rarely or never use the truck bed, and 70% never tow anything with it.

If that's true, they're not buying a truck because it's good at truck stuff, they're buying it for reasons that are superficial, because a truck is worse at literally everything to do with driving on roads than cars UNLESS they're towing or hauling something.

You can look it up yourself.

There's something called a natural monopoly. Social media is likely to be a natural monopoly, in much the same way that the phone company was a natural monopoly before it was forcibly broken up and forced to provide interconnections to other phone companies using shared standards, etc. There's not a whole lot of difference other than the phone company having a higher physical infrastructure barrier to entry.

Regardless, Facebook is not blameless. They bought Instagram, effectively consolidating the potential players in that space from two down to one. And antitrust law does sometimes break up natural monopolies. It isn't about fault or blame. It is about actions taken while in that state that harm competition, harm users, etc.

Doesn't matter. Antitrust law isn't just about the users being victims. It is also about other companies being the victims by being unable to compete because of unfair competition, collusion, excessive mergers, etc. User/purchaser harm is only one narrow aspect of a much larger body of law.

It's actually more than that. For a typical website, you would be right. The problem with social media is that it is inherently social. If your friends aren't on the same site, you can't share things with them. People don't join a site that doesn't already have a lot of users, and therefore, there's an almost insurmountable barrier to entry when you end up with one or two entrenched players, in spite of it theoretically being possible to create another site.

And because Facebook is not federated, hides even public content behind a login wall, and makes sharing with non-users generally impractical, they are directly contributing to a situation where even if another company came along and created something that is better, no one would use it, because their friends and family would not be there, because they are all already on Facebook.

In much the same way that the EU basically forced Apple to open up Messages to support RCS for inter-platform communication, the only way Facebook/Instagram will ever realistically stop being a monopoly is if a government forces them to federate with other social media platforms so that you can share with your friends on other platforms. A strong antitrust judgment against Facebook would be a necessary first step towards that.

Besides, Google+ *was* better than Facebook in a lot of ways, IMO. It wasn't enough, though. I created an account, but nobody I knew was on, so I didn't ever post anything, and because people didn't ever post anything, nobody came to use it, and it ended up being a ghost town. The fact that a head-to-head competitor for Facebook emerged, backed by one of the largest companies on the planet, with a significantly better, more capable product, a more flexible sharing model, etc. and still could not successfully compete with Facebook should tell you that no, building a better product will never work.

The only way other sites "compete" is by being entirely orthogonal to Facebook, targeting largely non-overlapping demographics and largely non-overlapping sets of features. But that's not really competing. That's coexisting. I would argue that Facebook has no actual competition, except perhaps in the vague, wishy-washy "competing for eyeball time" fashion, in which case everything online and offline is a competitor.

If the airlines are acting as a de facto division of the government by providing them with your personal data, then they should be treated as such. That means they should follow simple rules for protecting PII like collecting and retaining the minimum needed.

You mean like when he claimed the iPhone would be all webapps?

Let's face it, Jobs' only superpower was being a super dick to employees. This can only take you so far.