Non-lawyer here: one reason corporations won't give you info about exactly what they think you did wrong is it gives you no grounds to sue them for slander.
Similarly, no HR department will inform another HR department if you were fired or why, they'll only confirm dates of employment.
> Non-lawyer here: one reason corporations won't give you info about exactly what they think you did wrong is it gives you no grounds to sue them for slander.
Telling you something that they think about you, without witnesses, is not slander.
e.g.
> Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
> A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
> The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
> If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
> Damage to the plaintiff [from the statement itself].
I can imagine someone arguing that Google's fraud department defamed them, causing another department (the third party) to take actions that damaged the plaintiff. "unprivileged" might be hard to argue though.
Google talking to Google is not a third party in any sense.
In general, businesses don't need to do business with you and can exercise relatively arbitrary judgment on this. It gets scary when we're talking about entities with significant market power just deciding to exclude you, though.
If Google says "we suspended your account because you did x, y, and z, which caused us to suspect that you are committing fraud" that is not slander, unless you can prove that they didn't actually think so, which is impossible.
They should also figure out how to stop channel hijacking and the shillers playing that Elon Musk crypto interview which keeps showing up in my recommendations...
I posted a SpaceX live feed launch on my work Slack channel, pretty close to the end, and when it ended it redirected to one of those crypto scams and someone complained I posted a crypto scam on the channel.
To be fair to the person a lot of people open things in a tab and look at them later.
YouTube's default behavior when a stream ends is to redirect you to the first video (or stream) from the sidebar of suggested/related videos -- whatever that may be.
This is a pretty serious misfeature, IMO. But it is what it is.
Subscriber and view counts are a huge factor in whether a video gets recommended and scammers are able to easily exploit that using bots. Some simple commonsense would go far here. For one they could restrict streaming if a new account quickly gains tens of thousands of subscribers. That seems to be a common theme among the scammer accounts I've seen.
They were, but I unbanned them after seeing the comment and looking at the recent history. We garbage collect unnecessary bans that way, although it's sporadic and ad hoc.
I do bespoke personal support. I always solve their oddest problems. There's always a way, somehow. I'm available 24/7, for those 4am calls from Singapore. In return, they are very loyal.
This doesn't harm anyone. People follow and believe in all kinds of unreal things - The Pope tweets, Dalai Lama has a website... at least there's not going to be Flat Earth terrorism.
Well, it is actually extremely expensive to produce customer-facing documentation of high quality. Vendors don't do that (or do to a limited extent), because a) this is big cost and time consumption, and b) because the makers don't request it anymore; even given such information of high quality they would not use it! Many of them have acquired the reflex of calling vendor's support for even the smallest question (let alone anything involved -- they will shift that job to vendor entirely), so the vendors have performed the selection of customers they can work with that way, and neglected the others (and the documentation).
From personal experience, the expectation of good documentation today for many developers -- an instant reply to a question limited to 140 characters.
The information is available just not to a larger group of people.
Opening up stuff in hardware is just miles behind software. That's all. Also a lot in open source software is driven by people that realize the benefits from both an engineering and a marketing perspective. The gap between these skills is even wider in hardware.
Not arguing with you, but first thing in the way of opening up hardware, is vendor's liability. It is very hard to communicate to a customer who had just spent money on a big run of boards, only to discover uncorrectable flaws in the SoC, that "we actually imply no warranty and no fitness for any purpose". If this liability question could somehow be solved, the remaining progress on opening up would be made much faster.
Most Microprocessor manufacturers Atmel, Microchip, ST, TI, NXP etc give out incredible documentation for free and probably enough though for a competitor to reverse engineer a dodgy but functional implementation of the chip (say in a FPGA).
Not sure why these guys go all the way where as companies like broadcom do not, I would put it more to shaving the last cent off the chip. I know which ones I would choose as an engineer but you dont often get to make the choice.
Considering that automotive fault tolerance is one of NXP's core competences, I can guarantee you that there is plenty of secret sauce that you're not privy to in those chips.
Yeah, probably you're right. And it's not like it would stop the really determined guys - X-Raying stuff would do a part of the trick, and maybe stealing the documentation would the other part.
Some fraction of the potential customers will call you, which gives you contact information. If you're proactive enough and good enough at selling to that fraction, the end result is beneficial for you.
