... when it asked itself: "Where is Sarah Connor?"

At least they open sourced it. I hate that I'm applauding them for doing something that should be the standard. There should be regulations in place requiring end-of-life insurance that will provide the resources to fully open any hardware and the software it relies on, should a product be sunsetted after some reasonable lifespan.

I had a similar issue here. Another problem is that I found was the notion of the "accepted" answer. This is great in theory, but only works as a snapshot in time because languages evolve. There was no simple way to post the same question again, or pin the "accepted" answer to a language or software package version.

I often went down the path of implementation suggested only to find that the problem was solved in a more modern way after a version update. The community just couldn't keep up with the evolution of the tech it aims to assist with. AI has this problem, but you can usually zero in with enough specifics.

So, make the incentive vanity. How about keep a record of "most trash hauled down"? I'm sort of being cheeky, but the money isn't the incentive. It's ego.

In either case, shouldn't they keep the program, as it does generate revenue? Can't that revenue be used to subsidize some sort of cleanup effort?

That's all YOU want. But I wouldn't mind setting up my system so the garage door triggers other events. For instance, it might turn on the smart lights in the adjacent hallway. It might send a notification to my phone if I am not home. Just because you don't want something doesn't make it useless or others. Just don't buy it.

This will result in increased profits
This will not result in decreased prices
This will not result in improvement of products
This will not result in reining in predatory third-party sellers and scammers
This will not result in Amazon cutting a dividend
This will result in profits being redirected to executives and expanding their monopoly into new sectors

I have been wanting to drop Amazon Prime for quite a while. But, my I have had my father in law on our plan for the past, oh 12 years or so. He is so generous and never asks a thing of anybody. He hates change, so I have been keeping the subscription REALLY just for him, content that he can take that for granted.

Now my reasons to keep Prime have dropped to zero, so cancel it I will.

I might have found value if they didn't

Give us prime music free with the service, then pull the rug, by making it a paid add-on
Give us prive video with great exclusive content, only to start charging us by making us watch ads, or by paying more
Offer items with "free shipping" only to mark them up the same price as the shipping costs.

I do worry that there are services I didn't realize were tied to Prime, but I'm happy to find out the hard way.

Big Dark Money on both sides of the aisle.

One Nation — boosts Republican/Conservative Senate allies.
Majority Forward — boosts Democratic/Liberal Senate allies.
Americans for Prosperity — Koch network; backs conservative/Republican causes.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce — pro-business; often Republicans, sometimes centrist Democrats.

All of these have strong digital outreach spending. It's hard to pin this to actual "influencers", but it definitely funds advertising, and influencers are definitely paid, if not directly. Though, if I had to wager, i would put my chips on the fact that they are also being paid directly by both sides. But i'm willing to admit I cannot cite direct evidence of that.

I wouldn't cry if rewards went away. But I definitely benefit from them. I don't know what my interest rate is, but my effective rate is zero. I pay the card in full every month. If I can't, I don't make the purchase. Never paid a fee in over 20 years.

Luckily, in my adult life, I never had to fund an emergency on credit. That's not a privilege everyone has.

They are more likely interested in the talent, not the specific thing he created. The money prizes listed are not that big when you look at the big picture of fostering and acquiring top talent.

Also "opt-out by default" is called opt-in.

It certainly is. Of course opting in is implicitly buried in a twelve page legal blurb:

"By using this... you agree to opt in to ... and if we make something up later, you opt in to that too"

There probably should be a more targeted law because this landscape is ridiculous.

Exactly. If the device can be a vector for attack, there should be whitelists, not blacklists.

And at a higher level, if those prohibitions were bypassed, maliciously or innocently, the data that was accessed was not secure. One employees computer shouldn't have this much power over company data and infrastructure. The real failure is up the chain. This is a CTO-level failure.

Further, why isn't this being described as a failure higher up the chain?
Why should an employee have the power to cause this much destruction, even if the result of an error?
If your company can crumble because of a single lower-level employee, you have issues with your security landscape.

But even if its the latter they do, at least if the game is a faithful recreation. Games are not 100% spec'd out before the coding begins. There are iterative processes where developers implement parts of the game, and go back to the drawing board to rework the code and data (assets, levels, configurations, etc) based on testing. The game is a result of all of this trial and error.

Even if a game were rebuilt from scratch, the people who contributed to the original development effort share in the end product.

"Deserve" is subjective. But if we consider development efforts that make the end product the way it is to be deserving, then the latter absolutely deserve credit.