Not to state the obvious (at least I thought it was obvious), but I'm sure the engineer is there to monitor specific performance metrics and make tweaks to the system in case of issues. It's extremely common during test stage of any system for an engineer to be present... While doing this, the engineer is likely not going to be paying attention to driving, more paying attention to how the system is trying to drive which is a key distinction.

Kind of a fallacy there. The entire point of a capitalist free-market is that you can get some measure of return on your investment so that you can use that surplus to purchase goods and services that are not part of your core competencies. A break even investment in dollars is actually a net loss because you lose time. Therefore, no, an ideal free-market does not have a zero dollar profit as it would erase the supply side of the market entirely. An ideal market does however have a low profit (though low is arbitrary) model so that consumers can maintain some equality with suppliers.

The capitalist side is where this gets tipped though, as in our economy those with capital accumulation hold more of the power through purchasing ability/influence, investment strength, and the simple ability to wait out lower capital competition that can't sustain the razor thin margins required to take market share. It isn't a bad thing if those with the capital accumulation are good stewards and don't abuse that position, but as most of us know that is not a common scenario.

To the original point, this power imbalance is furthered tipped by the information gap. With the additional information there are manipulative tactics that can be used to create a greater foothold (i.e. artificial scarcity, seasonal goods presentation based on non-public shopping patterns, etc.). Consumers are definitely hurt by this and so far it seems most of the companies have created a universal unspoken agreement to not cross that line and give the consumers a level playing field.

Typically I shoot for a light text color that is just barely a light grey then a charcoal or dark smokey background color. Provides high contrast and way less light, but helps reduce the glaring offset of straight white on straight black.

I wasn't actually talking about it from a power stand point though, more from a lumens to your eyes standpoint. The wording may have been a bit confusing, but when the screen is black there is in fact less light reaching your eyes, which is most of what I care about.

Actually I do. The first computer I ever used had a basic DOS OS on it and used a shitty CRT monitor. The picture was of course terrible compared to now, but the darker colors I actually preferred.

Basically yes. Typical backlit displays essentially filter from their source (AMOLED and other LED displays though do actually turn the pixel off), requiring your eyes to actually have less high energy light pour through them. In a bright ambient environment it doesn't make a big difference, but in more reasonable lit areas it can make a massive difference. I've dealt with sleep issues too that have been helped by reducing large sources of high energy light.

For starters, how many people actually have that kind of money on hand? If everyone started doing that the current economic system would crash and burn hard. Besides that, the IRS requires any transaction over $10,000 be reported to them with identifiable information to prevent money laundering and other financial crimes, so that isn't even an anonymous purchase.

https://www.irs.gov/businesses...

I agree with the contrast portion, I always have light foreground, dark background. However the main reason I think print is black on white is ink cost and most paper comes out colorless/white. However, with screens the reverse is much better as the monitor has to put out way more light with a light theme than dark theme thus vastly increasing eye strain.

I would argue the dark default should be preferable simply from an eye fatigue standpoint (I personally suffer from very bad vision and severe light sensitive migraines). I don't have an issue with someone preferring a light theme, but feel like dark should be default.

Same here. No idea why dark themes are not standard implementation of most things honestly. I even use Stylus in Firefox to fix websites without dark themes to have a dark theme. Wish MS would add a dark theme for all of office too...

Oh I forgot, slashdot has a number of hermits visiting the site on the regular... Less than 1% of landlords are going to not do a credit check, and the problem isn't the landlord it is the damn credit agencies that have detailed financials records of your entire life. Even cash purchases can be traced in some ways by banking institutions that are analyzing known shopping patterns of the average person against ATM withdrawals. Of course I'm sure you keep your money in a mattress somewhere and think everyone that uses a bank is an idiot for "volunteering" their information up.

How about digital fingerprinting and analysis of that? Are you also blocking all cookies, scripts, blowing out your browser regularly, changing ISPs, locations that you live, and making sure all your equipment has variables MAC addresses and IP assignment every time you access something? Oh wait, I bet you access the internet from public terminals on a regular-irregular basis while wearing a fucking unabomber outfit, using aliases, and stealing other people's login credentials. Oh and lets not forget the programs that are sending telemetry data back to their home base without informing anyone. You're on Slashdot browsing the internet so I guess you're volunteering a plethora of information just by doing that.

Seriously, get your head out of your ass. Companies in the US especially have been harvesting vast amounts of information that no one realizes they are "volunteering" in any way for years now. We used to have deceptive trade and marketing laws to alleviate some of these problems, but those aren't hardly enforced on anything even remotely modern. If you stop sucking the cock of Corporate America for 5 seconds you might actually think, "huh, instead of talking about absurd solutions to problems that I know are unrealistic for 99% of the population, I could actually try to help other people even a tiny bit by speaking against this shit." People like you are just as big a problem, maybe even moreso, than people who are not even trying to get educated on these subjects.

Ever buy any large ticket items or do anything requiring a credit check? Then they have that information. Another issue is the amount of information sharing going on between these companies. Right now there is very minimal regulation and different companies are perfectly willing to sell off their piece of the puzzle for the pieces they don't have about consumers. Facebook and Google have made pretty considerable profits off of essentially doing that.

False equivalency. As much as I may disdain some of their opinions on the news, Trump and Russia, etc. I, nor most reasonable people, are actually saying they should be banned, censored, or gagged for those specific things. Some more extremist groups might call for that, but that isn't the point. The problem is that they are in fact encouraging violence, promoting actual hate speech, and pushing theories that they know are completely false just because it fits their viewpoints. Seriously, Jones admitted in court that he was making shit up:
https://www.usatoday.com/story...

Those are things that actually do violate the ToS. Which, by the way, anyone could read, review, and they were fine with all the way up until it caused their favorite nutbag to get banned for violating it.

Just because they have said other things that are unpopular doesn't mean those unpopular things are the reason they were banned. If a person commits a crime do you also think we should overlook that and not try them in court if they have said a few crazy things you agree with and think shouldn't be "silenced"?

Now, do you want to know why the liberal organizations have less issues with this sort of thing? Because the liberals actively go after their own people that do shit like that. I always find it funny how conservative groups will condemn a liberal activist for inciting violence or any such, laugh their asses off at the "liberals eating each other" when others on their side go after the idiot, but then proceed to call foul as soon as a conservative gets the same treatment from them (even though the conservatives are silent...).

What exactly were these people contributing that you feel the need to make this statement?

I'm genuinely curious, because all I've ever seen out of Jones and the ones I'm familiar with is a lot of conspiracy theories about how everyone is out to get everything that ultra conservatives value (no matter how he has to twist something to be an attack on one of those things) and advocating violence if they don't get their way. He basically is pushing regularly for violent backlash if people don't give them what they want because their way is the "correct" way and anyone that disagrees is somehow an America hating sickness on the country. Isn't he pushing for the exact same thing you are disparaging Facebook and others that "censor" these kinds of people? Only he/they are taking it to an extreme conclusion that not only should the people with opposition viewpoints be censored/silenced but actually attacked and killed?

I don't think I follow your thought process at all...

(Not the AC, but I disagree with your ridiculous assertion) You do realize the economy and society as we know it would collapse long before that right? Who the fuck is going to buy all of the shit THAT guy is selling if no one has any real wages with which to buy? Automation is just being used as the current boogey man. Its a new buzzword for what we have been doing for thousands of years: Making work easier.

First off, it is in the interest of the people that are selling shit for there to still be a market to sell anything to. What the hell is the point of automating a task no one wants done?

Second, new jobs will get created because new work will be done to improve a product or service that has had the easier stuff automated. I know this because I've seen the cycle happen repeatedly. Companies in competition with others don't simply automate the easy work and then say, "well that is good enough, we can make all the money without any more work" because some other company comes along, does the same shit and then says, "I'm going to add this thing that requires work that isn't automated so that everyone gives me their money over this other guy." The cycle begets itself and we continue to move forward.

No, they should shut the account down and send the person the money... There are laws in most states for what happens to unclaimed money too if the person doesn't respond or they would have to go to extraordinary lengths to return that money. That would be a lot more ethical than abruptly changing terms of use and then attempting to siphon fees off indefinitely.