Comment Re:Lawsuit (Score 1) 239
Yes. I am totally destroyed. Nothing but ashes.
Do feel free to answer the questions asked when you've calmed down if you want to continue the conversation.
Yes. I am totally destroyed. Nothing but ashes.
Do feel free to answer the questions asked when you've calmed down if you want to continue the conversation.
This is just another variant of the enshitification that has overwhelmed our modern world and the Internet in general. I'm reminded of the Steve Miller Band's "Take the Money and Run."
Please stop throwing that word around. This isn't enshitification. This is a software company releasing a hardware product that was wildly unpopular, didn't sell well, and deciding actually they aren't good at it and give up.
Spotify still works the way it did before for everyone else. Every single product on the market not being a successful hit isn't "enshitification". If you want "enshitification" look to Spotify's stupid tiktok video bulllshit, or pushing podcasts to the front of the app even for users who have zero interest, or the dropping of features such as chronological scrolling, the breaking of randomiser, THAT is enshitification.
Yes, both customers suing Spotify at once would be quickly and easily settled out of court.
If you're going to sell a product, it should come with a mandatory minimum lifetime backed by the vendor.
Well on the upside, there's a reason this one is being discontinued. They didn't sell many at all. And I would wager that for 99.9% of Slashdot readers this is the first they'll have even heard about this product.
Early adopters get burnt.
But that said in general I agree with your ideas.
Maybe because doing that would take considerable investment
Oh no. Not investment in infrastructure. Can't do that!!!! What is the world coming to suggesting we need to invest in our utilities.
I find it interesting that you aren't accounting for the fact those potential customers are split among multiple companies and every customer expects his/her cell phone to work EVERYWHERE. So all those 4 companies have to build out EVERYWHERE.
You mean just like in every other country? Look your view is daft. There's no functional difference here. Rural coverage is garbage in America, and the urbanisation rate in America is on par with most countries people often complain about comparing to, including Chile, meaning to cost of infrastructure per customer is very similar.
How much you want to bet that when a drought comes it'll also be blamed on climate change, and they'll just dust off some other model which does make that prediction?
Oh yeah I'll take that bet gladly -but not betting against you. Because climate models show repeatedly more severe weather events. A drought is a severe weather event. Never ending rain is a severe weather event. The same model predicts both - in fact virtually all climate models predict both, no need to dust off anything.
No one should run MS OSs.
Indeed. People don't need to, and to them there is no risk. For those people who do the risk profile hasn't changed (something you didn't seem to even refute).
You can though. Seems like you must run MS OSs for some reason and are convinced it is a must for all. Good for you!
I'm not sure why you think I am running an MS OS, or why you think anything I said suggests that someone else must as well. Did you not learn basic literacy at school? Please turn on your brain before you post next time.
They are going to record everything, but Hey, it's alright. They'll block screenshots in the browser. There. Problem solved. No one has cell phones.
Yes they are going to record things locally encrypted on your computer. - Not a risk. You can either believe that or not. If you don't believe them about what they say their OS does then you already are exposing yourself to a massive risk running software from a party you don't trust.
Jesus, you're a moron.
It's just embarrassing to read your naive apologies for MS.
Right back at you. My post isn't an apology (or apologies) for Microsoft, it's an attack on other people's stupidity. I mad no comment for or against Microsoft. Please learn to read.
As previous poster says, there's nothing about Microsoft you can trust. That is empirically proven.
And as I say, if you can't trust Microsoft then this isn't a risk for you since you area already running a highly complex OS under their control
Analogy. A guy with a gun is standing in front of you and you really think he's going to kill you. But you're scared of giving him a knife because he may stab you. God gave you a brain (presumably) you should really use it sometime.
We always blame the customer in these cases. If you ask for "a hat" and get a fedora when you actually meant a baseball cap, that's not on the seller. That on customer not specifying desired product with sufficient accuracy.
Biased much?
No. Actually I had so little bias that I had to look up what the average wages were in both countries before I made my post and the numbers I quoted came directly from what I looked up.
Not only are labour costs low for wireless carriers compared to many other industries, their costs declined in 2022. https://www.bls.gov/news.relea... [bls.gov]
Not sure what point you think you are making, but T-mobile raising the price by $5 over the 2020 levels means that your contract is $7.93 cheaper than it should be if their rates actually followed the US inflation rate. Yeah costs are low, and comparatively so is your mobile phone contract. If it kept up with inflation your $60 plan would have to go up by $12.93, it's not. In fact most plans are only going up by something like $2.
Amazon, Google, Microsoft.
Monopolies aren't illegal. And they aren't going after ticket master because they are a monopoly. They are going after them for "maintaining a monopoly" or "monopolzing". That is a verb, not a noun.
I'm with you in general and can come up with some examples myself, but I'm curious if you even know what Amazon, Google and Microsoft have *specifically* done that would make them run afoul of anti-trust legislation. Being a monopoly isn't one of the them.
None of anti-trust law has to do with consumer prices. Setting high prices isn't an anti-trust issue unless you agree with someone else to do it. In fact... lowering price can be an anti-trust issue, it's a classic goal to use your power and wealth to undercut and put competitors out of business.
Most phishing attacks do not look like they originate from within the company. They claim to be from Microsoft, Google, DHL, SAP, Citibank, etc. Corporate partners for whom you most definitely will not be able to force any PGP practice (it's hard enough to do that internally).
If you are asking that question you've failed security 101. Dumb users exist sitting at every OS, and they are nearly always the attack vector used.
My idea of roughing it turning the air conditioner too low.
