this eye thing will never work. people in general are realizing the last people we should trust with our personal stuff are tech bro billionaires. they’ve broken trust too many times.
even worse many of them are just plain vocal about their disdain for people in general.
at least from what i’m seeing, people are starting to walk away from online at an increasing rate so i definitely don’t see widespread adoption of his creepy eye thing.
“If McDonald’s offered three free Big Macs for a DNA sample, there would be lines around the block.” - Bruce
I have no idea about the eye thing taking off. But I think your comment is very HN and a bit out-of-touch with regular people. What "you're seeing" is a bubble and not representative of the general population. The eye thing is a slow frog boil and it will be commonplace before you can blink.
if someone doesn’t want ai on their devices, you think it’s a double standard that they’re annoyed when it’s installed anyway?
i’m not anti-ai by any stretch, but to pretend like their personal choices don’t matter is a bit too dismissive. it’s their choice, we probably shouldn’t imply other people having their own personal taste is hysterical or whatever it is you’re dancing around.
if this is the case, they should say “won’t” rather than “can’t”
“Waymo won’t avoid bike lanes…” would be much more accurate.
obviously the can’t part would be nonsense. they can avoid lanes where traffic flows the opposite direction so obviously they can.
to me this means we should take their license away. if they said “we won’t avoid oncoming traffic, we would take their license away. just like one way streets are for cars traveling in one direction, bike lanes are for bikes.
if you or i drove the wrong way down a one way repeatedly we would rightfully be in trouble. why do these companies keep behaving like they don’t have to follow the same rules you and i do?
if ever there was an appropriate time to tell someone to go “touch grass”, it’s here. you know they’re spinning out in some kind of hilarious spiral when the company posts something like this.
go outside, go meet up with friends in person, invite friends of friends, have a lan party, in person game night, drunken concert, etc… whatever, just get a hobby with others… things like these are the map out of the corny ass rabbit hole their circle are lost in.
if it were up to me i’d require a hand signed contract that explicitly, up front and in plain english gives permission and is not transferable to any “partners”.
I disagree whole heartedly. The organizations should absolutely have the choice to price tickets to their events however much they choose. And they should have recourse for people who choose to ignore their wishes.
Its their product. Why would you want to take that choice away from them?
An example, I spent some time working for an organization who felt strongly that retirees living on a fixed income should always be able to afford tickets to their events. They would bring in big name musicians to perform and charge a fair price specifically so those people could afford it. Why would you want to take that choice away from that organization and force them to price out the elder community members they were trying to serve?
Its the organizations event, they should always have the choice to charge whatever they want.
it should be illegal to insinuate unlimited when it isn’t unlimited.
that said, it’s become so normalized by now for companies to basically lie what they’re giving to you, so ultimately there isn’t a whole lot you can do.
my grandpa used to always say “i fought the law and the law won” that should be updated to, “i fought misleading/lying corp and the corp won.”
They should still be allowed to disconnect you or cap it if you abuse it. Businesses shouldn't be forced to put up with customers that are costing them money by being unreasonable.
So, you are saying it is unreasonable to take a company at its word.
You are saying it is unreasonable to understand the words a company uses as having the same meaning as understood by every other speaker, writer, listener, and reader.
And you are saying it is reasonable for a company to lie, to make claims that are the opposite of the words it uses.
Yes, the company's network resources are finite, and it is reasonable to put in limits on abuse. That does not (and should not) create a license to abuse the language. There are many other words a company could HONESTLY use to describe its biggest plan that do not mean infinite when they mean finite. Any competent marketer and lawyer can find a thesaurus.
(and the same applies to "Full Self Driving", an obvious lie in it's second decade.)
"Unlimited" is just the plan name / description. It doesn't mean you can defy physics. You cannot have more Olive Garden breadsticks than there are atoms in the universe.
Sure, but if you advertise unlimited data and a data rate of 100mbps you should be obligated to deliver 100mbps for as long as the user continues to pay for service.
Except that I guarantee there's some fine print in the terms that says otherwise. Also, cancelling his service means he's not continuing to pay for service.
whether this way or in slow motion mass attacks on people.
an attack on a society that lasts years is still an attack and i wish the collective we would realize this.
“it’s ok if millions suffer now for me to realize my dream” is just wrong.
i’ll never understand how these guys fail to realize: they actively push for people not to care about the destruction they cause. that’s obviously going to bite them in the ass whenever they’re on the receiving end.
even worse many of them are just plain vocal about their disdain for people in general.
at least from what i’m seeing, people are starting to walk away from online at an increasing rate so i definitely don’t see widespread adoption of his creepy eye thing.
reply