This is the actual problem with nuclear power. And by the time it comes around, the people who made the decisions have already safely moved elsewhere or into pension.

Correct. Breaking is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

If something breaks, it's on me. This is about companies being able to take something away that isn't broken at all, at any time they choose, without any refund.

For any other item that'd be theft and would land them in jail.

There are some things where I think it's fair to never trust that person fully again. Ever. But we need a way to trust them enough to let them live and participate in society if we believe they are rehabilitated while still protecting everyone around them.

I'm sure that's not easy, but it has to be easier than lifetime incarceration.

If you think software never breaks, I have a bunch of 5.25" disks somewhere that want to have an argument with you.

It's a complete strawman to argue that physical things break. If I buy music, digitally, that won't break and yet nobody sane would expect that the band can at some random time in the future say "we revoke all our music". I can also think of a number of physical things that unless I mistreat them will easily survive me and three generations down the line.

This is not about replacements, it's about taking the product sold away but keeping the money.

Plenty of people expected this from "the West".

Look at the prison models of almost any other industrialized Western country - make even the slightest genuine effort to reform people instead of considering them subhuman to be inhumanely tortured by the circumstances of their confinement followed by blocking them from participating in the economy upon release and results will improve.

Improve public education and remove inequalities and you remove crime as the best option for catching up to everyone else.

AI won't be used to help convicts, because nobody in the US wants to help them. It'll be used to better manage their shackles for increased profits.

And what stops you from making a seperate license to play on the servers provided by the company that is based on good behaviour and/or monthly subscription fees?

This is what the Stop Killing Games movement is also about: Sure, we understand that eventually you wind down the online servers, no problem. But if I paid for a game, why should you have the right to disable it? With no other things I buy can you at any time later come to my house and take them back or disable them. Not with my microwave, not with my shower, not with my lights.

1) Typically the systems monitoring, if not the systems themselves, is dumped on the police along with the funding. I agree in principle that police data systems should be handled by an arms-length agency without ties to any particular police service. I also believe this should include their body cams, interview room video, and even their fleet and weapons/ammo tracking. They should not have any oversight over their own data because that leads to the potential for abuse.

2) At least where I am... officers can query, but queries of federal databases are audited and monitored. You've never seen someone walked out of a building faster than when they are caught with their hand in that particular cookie jar. And yes, charges happen for the serious incidents. However, that still leaves a lot of room for abuse of non-federal data.

And that title is backed by the fact that a decade ago or so I was implementing proper auditing to track cops because they were... abusing video systems and it made it into the news.

Cops are just people, the badge doesn't confer ethics or strength of character. It often does confer a sense of superiority to the general public and a belief that they're above some of the rules the rest of us abide by.

Even the best, most upright cop should never be taken at their word - there should always be some form of oversight. Because they're humans.

Username checks out.

Buy indie games.

It's only the big players who have these delusions.

I'm not saying the right answer is to get a refund. The right answer is to not make the license revokable.

For the theater comparison: If the theatre would invalidate my ticket and throw me out mid-movie, you can be sure that I'd ask for a refund. And in any sane jurisdiction, I'd get it.

Mostly, the difference is some legales, but the kicker is: "revocable". That is an insane difference. I'm quite sure it doesn't say you get a refund if they revoke your license.

This seems like a situation where it's very hard to get excited about the idea that it's the regulator's problem. Did some Canadian fed technically have the authority to inspect? Quite possibly. Is there some sort of justification for even the cost of performing the inspection, much less any undesired knock-on effects of the notion that literally all vessels must be inspected no matter what, in a case like this? Seems harder to make that case.

There are a lot of situations where large portions of the public have no choice but to use products and services that they have no reasonable ability to be "informed" about. Either it's simply not possible if you aren't in a position to legally compel honesty from the vendor or it's a case where "informed" is PhD-level work in the area, or a combination of the two; but some rando's aggressively contrarian submarine that loudly and proudly skips all industry certifications and is available on boutique scale for very wealthy customers doesn't seem like one of those cases.

Cooled EGR is not an either-or to DEF. You can have both.

That's even more weight, space, and complexity that no-one wants. It's hard enough fitting the EGR cooler for 4,500hp loco in the loading gauge. And the reason they went with EGR in the first place is because they don't want to deal with the logistics of supplying loco fleets with DEF. Using EGR and DEF would completely defeat the purpose.