No one, either in comments, nor in article, actually touches on form factor. The fact is that sedans are only good for moving people, but there’s better options for that: like cycling or train. The real benefit of an SUV’s form factor (or pickup, or station wagon, or hatchback) is that you can move cargo with it, the kind of stuff that you can’t move with efficient people movers.

Counter argument: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

problem seems to be […] intertwined language with culture

You lost the argument right here. Language is as fundamental to culture as the sky is blue.

The rest of your post amounts to “communication is important to function” and you are not wrong on that front. But you put no weight on the importance of culture too.

Consider this your wakeup call, that just because you don’t personally care about society having an identity doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t.

You’ve got bigger problems than labour relations when “having a pleasant feminine voice” is the success criteria you use to measure the performance of a reporter.

I dunno, this logic sounds exactly like the fucked up logic that went on in the conference room that dreamed up this shitty idea only to have it face reality and be pulled on day one.

It’s faster until you need the human operator to keep coming over because the anti-theft sensors keep getting tripped up by false positive readings. Or you need to find some vegetable code that a normal cashier has memorized.

Self checkout is great when it’s done well, and total shit when poorly executed. And unfortunately, it’s not always just a matter of technology (which normally keeps improving); it’s often a matter of business model: sometimes customer convenience is really important, other times loss prevention (which creates frustration) is more important.

I’ve seen countless good self-checkout experiences backslide into crap experience because the business felt that a controlled client is more profitable than a convenienced client.

Because many people don’t see it that way. Many people see this more as a “stop defending yourself” statement.

In reality, this is a very difficult situation for everyone that can only end in one of two ways: listening to grievances on ALL sides and finding compromise (which usually results in no one getting what they want), or more bloodshed.

On a side note, I smell the implication that internal debate within a party, or changing policy in response to public sentiment is some kind of weakness. In reality, this is the healthiest manifestation of democracy. If someone can’t respect that, then all I can say is they have no business calling themselves Canadian.

Driving off with the rental car is a fine analogy if we were comparing this to not returning a DVD you rented.

But this is not that. And that is kind of the point.

Piracy is a breach of contract for sure. The point the author is trying to make is that our current licensing contracts around media are out of touch with the social contract (you pay for something, you get it).

Hence the moral hazard. So companies will flaunt the social contract (like in the case of Sony) with impunity but will get rightous as soon as people flaunt the legal contract. It’s a double standard, where all the power is in the hands of those with the biggest legal department.

You can’t define “theft” untill you first define justice. And if consumers and media holders can’t even agree to a just system, then why bother categorizing anything as theft at all?

That’s a weird way of saying that all manufacturers will from now adhere to the NACS or SAE J3400 charge standard, further breaking down the barriers to locked in–or monopolized–charge networks. It’s also a very weird way of saying that a common charge standard will further diversify stakeholdership in an already pretty diversified charge network stakeholdership ecosystem.

Musk isn’t even Tesla’s founder, BTW. Musk just bought the place.

It’s stupid shit like this why regulation is not the answer to big tech. But then we wouldn’t need regulation if big tech didn’t ruin all that was good about the Internet to begin with.

People are the problem. At large scale they turn everything to shit. Both in the private sector and in the public sector. Both meddling, making decisions on your behalf. In all cases taking your power away. It was better when we were just small communities, suffering and learning from the consequences of our own actions.

https://github.com/stashapp/stash

Am I throwing away all my mice, keyboards, DAC, digital pens, and other peripherals just so I can have a connector with more bandwidth than I’ll ever need? Nah.

Am I buying them or adapters all over again just so I can be compatible with a new universal standard that I don’t need? Double nah.

KVM switches, or breakout hubs that these devices plug into, then a single USB c device goes to the computer is the most logical avenue for a migration. But this will take a long time. Most people don’t even have that kind of luxury.

There’s a fine line between deserving of being scammed because of who they are and consequences of actions or inaction and it’s important we do not cross that line.

People have to take some responsibility to think critically about the content they consume. If people are not capable of consuming content responsibly, perhaps they should not consume content at all.

The alternative is policing content itself, and that is a very dangerous place to be for a whole host of other reasons.

I think you missed the part where the person you are replying to is talking about the ethics of the platform itself, not the ethical viewpoint of the users using the platform nor the personal views of the developers.

I despise Twitter’s leadership as much as the rest, but increasing ads is not at all a “cause a problem” situation Twitter doesn’t owe you ad-free usage of their platform. So no, not a scam/scummy behaviour, just bad value.

And you don’t owe Twitter your patronage. So just move on from it.