> Escape hatches are great, but each also represents a security weakness waiting to be exploited.
Having money and using them without supervision is a safety risk. You can unknowingly buy food that isn't good for your health. And good food is what you actually need. So transfer your money to me and I will benevolently manage your diet for you. No other motives but your safety and wellbeing, I swear.
By the way, can you really trust the supermatkets? They sell alcohol and alcohol is bad for you.
"When you use Unpaid Services, including, for example, Google AI Studio and the unpaid quota on Gemini API, Google uses the content you submit to the Services and any generated responses to provide, improve, and develop Google products and services and machine learning technologies, including Google's enterprise features, products, and services, consistent with our Privacy Policy.
To help with quality and improve our products, human reviewers may read, annotate, and process your API input and output. Google takes steps to protect your privacy as part of this process. This includes disconnecting this data from your Google Account, API key, and Cloud project before reviewers see or annotate it. Do not submit sensitive, confidential, or personal information to the Unpaid Services."
That's a good point! The growth in arrests shown in the article I linked starts in 2017, though. I think internet usage has gone up significantly by some measures since 2017, but whether or not that's sufficient to explain the increase in arrests, I am not sure.
Ah true! I meant authentication in general by whatever means, which seems dystopian enough already, but indeed my post can be read as being about facial recognition being required to visit random websites... that's even worse! Don't give them ideas xD
Unless they are government backed trolls with fake ids issued ad-hoc by that government. That's one of the possibilities.
People already sell access to their Google accounts so buyers can run not-that-legal ad campaigns. Creating one extra step won't do much to solve problems as long as the incentive is big enough and budget is sufficient.
So, how do you screw a thin piece of glass onto a phone that doesn’t have bevels to speak of in such a way that you can put it into your pocket for years, and push a finger on the center of the screen tens of thousands of times without breaking?
Also, if there’s room below the screen, the screen will bend more than when there isn’t, and that will affect longevity.
I’m not claiming using glue wasn’t done out of malice, just that we can’t say it is.
In any case, all it takes to repair a phone with a glued screen is a two face suction grip for about 20 dollars and an ordinary hair dryer.
The nasty part of a phone repair, I will admit that, is scraping off the glue gunk - I had to repair a Google Pixel once where the battery was dead, and during removing the glue on the display unit border I apparently managed to damage the seal between the OLED display and the glass, exposing the OLED to oxygen which led to eventual oxidization and a new display panel.
It not that easy with their glued in batteries on some Macbook Pros. You have to essentially use alcohol to remove the glue to replace the battery. Absolute PITA. They could have used 4 screws and it would be easy to replace.
Apple has a high profit margin on their products so I expect better. This isn’t a cheap laptop from a supermarket.
Agreed but on the other side it makes the manufacturing more complex - another plastic part and screws as well as the time needed compared to just gluing in the battery.
I suspect this is a classic example of corporate beancounting at work, even if it just a dollar or two per machine, at Apple's volume of millions of machines that's nothing to sneeze at.
To fix it, we need laws that require a certain repairability score for all devices sold. Then doing the "right thing" would be a KPI that competes with pure financial incentives.
> Agreed but on the other side it makes the manufacturing more complex - another plastic part and screws as well as the time needed compared to just gluing in the battery.
>
> I suspect this is a classic example of corporate beancounting at work, even if it just a dollar or two per machine, at Apple's volume of millions of machines that's nothing to sneeze at.
They make a high margin on each device and other manufacturers can manage it fine at similar price points. I believe it was deliberate, they back tracked after being highly criticised for it.
> To fix it, we need laws that require a certain repairability score for all devices sold. Then doing the "right thing" would be a KPI that competes with pure financial incentives.
If people are concerned about repairability they should seek out manufacturers that offer products where they have a good track record.
Laptops, tablets and phones are seen as partly consumable by the majority of people and they replace them every few years. I am not saying that it is right, I am just saying that is the reality. Also not every problem can be legislated away and if you make something a KPI it will be gamed.
> That looks like expert level mental gymnastics detached from the reality.
Bro, I literally used to be homeless for a while many years ago. Believe me, I know how reality looks like, and there was nothing more frustrating than finding out, whoops, you don't have the 20 fucking cents to buy the groceries you wanted because they decided to raise the price of butter over night. Price reductions are announced in ads all the time, but price hikes? You can only find that out when you are in the store but then it may be too late and you gotta reschedule what you buy at a moment's notice.
Grocery prices must be stable and not subject to arbitrary games.
This is an argument that you felt bad. Is it an argument that you were worse off? Homeless people tend to have a huge stack of problems and how they feel isn't #1 as I understand it. And while I'd expect it to be a reasonable guide I don't trust the instincts of a homeless person to work out what is in their own best interests when those instincts are saying "systemically push the price of food up, that'll help". Frankly, it sounds like a traumatic experience and the response to the trauma would lead to bad policy.
I don't want to thoughtlessly minimise feeling bad, but between (having more food), (shelter) and (feeling good), society would be doing better to prioritise in that order when it comes to trying to help. We're talking about a situation where you have 20 cents; a 2% average reduction in the price of butter means you get around 2% more butter and associated calories. If we trade off price increases for higher average prices you'd literally just have had less butter to eat. Those differences will add up over a month, even if sometimes there is a tough shopping trip.
If the price stability thing is for poor families there are many better policies than pushing up the average price of food. Like pushing the price of food down, then finding ways to communicate what is cheapest this week. Ie, solving the "You can only find that out when you are in the store" part.
Having money and using them without supervision is a safety risk. You can unknowingly buy food that isn't good for your health. And good food is what you actually need. So transfer your money to me and I will benevolently manage your diet for you. No other motives but your safety and wellbeing, I swear.
By the way, can you really trust the supermatkets? They sell alcohol and alcohol is bad for you.