> because they're big companies serving a lot of customers over the internet, that any sort of fraud or product liability laws are irrelevant to them.
Is it false ?
As much as we can lament the current state of affair, we must acknowledge everything that has been thrown at any of the bigger companies has resulted in slap on the wrists at most.
At this exact moment in the US money is straight power, in it's rawest form.
Well no and that's the problem. Many governments (especially the United States one) are complicit in this. They don't do nearly enough to keep corporate power in check.
If they really wanted to fix these issues, antitrust could be a real thing again, and companies like Google would be forcefully broken up and barred from remerging later down the line. If Google doesn't have Gmail, Chrome, Android or YouTube and all these things are separate businesses, then their power is severely curtailed.
They could also arrest CEOs, board members and other people with a large amount of power at these organisations and charge them for the actions of the business.
Or levvy percentage based fines that obliterate the company's ability to function. Could Google function if it was charged 50-60% of a year's worldwide revenue until an issue was fixed? It'd probably have to cut way back on everything in that scenario.
The issue is that the government has been so thoroughly captured by corporate interests that noone faces meaningful consequences if they earn more than a billion dollars a year.
Without specific arguments on what Revolut consistently does that no other bank (e.g. HSBC, wells-fargo etc.) do, you're just yelling at money shaped clouds.
Not at all, if you send many crypto transactions to Revolut that is unexplained, I guarantee you that you'll get banned, have you actually tried? It's way stricter than exchanges (which leads to the same thing as you have a physical/virtual card offered by them nowadays).
People have this fixation on privacy, when there's so much more going on, potentially way mor important.
Google's strong position in AI gives them bragging right to attract more companies and get them to actually pay, subsidizing your use. It also lowers competitors position as you're not touching them while we're on Gemini. It also fortifies their position in the future ad market.
Being second or third in AI usage is worth a lot, one's private data matters very little in comparison.
I won't be first, second or third in the AI race. I'm not even participating in that race. I don't care who wins. However my private data are mine and I do care about them.
It's Google and those other companies that may not care about my privacy, because the AI race is more important to them.
If AI is going to cost too much, I will use a cheaper one (Ferrari or FIAT?) or if every AI will cost too much, no AI all and there will be billions of people like me.
I agree that "privacy is not the currency Google deals with."
However when I run an adblocker and Blockada on Android, when I use alternatives to the YouTube app (and Google is technologically fighting them) when I don't log into Google, then those exchanges happen with very little of the currency Google is interested in.
You're looking at it from iOS side only, and for a US company that would be the last platform they'd ever drop.
It was a different picture out of the Apple garden, when a company only brings their next major feature to iOS because they couldn't be bothered to hire the same headcount on two development teams and their CEO uses an iPhone anyway.
We had that discussion about a decade ago with a company rep that didn't realize 70% of their EU users were on Android yet their play store app didn't have the feature they were planning to promote.
Basically, better was the enemy of good for most companies.
Correct, I advocated for the solution that produced the best outcome for user experience, code and architecture simplicity, and prevented having to rewrite an app in the future in native. Which has been validated here.
The android shortfall is a real one but I also pushed for hiring native android developers too.
As someone who has watched a team battle Xamarin and now Maui, and all the painful upgrades in between, I agree with you. Sure they never had the pain of supporting two separate codebases, but they also never had the luxury of doing anything the easy way.
His current setup doesn't look bad to me from an ergonomic standpoint. Displays are fully articulated in all directions and probably at eye level, and keyboard and mouse will be in a comfortable position, with th trackball helping it all.
I'd hate such small screens but to each their own, and the MacBook wouldn't help.
On the decapitation, he's mentioning buying a cheaper device with a damaged screen (I'd assume those are near junk price) and I guess he used it the same way he uses his other computer.
There's photos in the article, those aren't dress shoes with laces to be done and undone, they're fit for the purpose.
Also in cases where it's really dire they'll just step in with shoes on, it's just extremely rare and it might actually be another team altogether, operating under a different protocol.
What about when you're three people while carrying a person? According to the article, it can delay them by ~30 seconds and risk dislodging the oxygen mask, the linked video also demonstrates the difference: https://www.instagram.com/p/DbqGfGfox3f/
Might seem like a small difference, but add in a stressful situation with a person almost dying, maybe being in pain, and the emergency workers trying to keep calm while also suddenly not finding their shoes in the position they purposefully left them, and suddenly the difference might be much large and also impactful.
I'd look at it from the lens of the situation near the door changing in unexpected ways.
Like turning the thumblock, moving the bench, shoving other people's shoes in the way etc. There is a myriad of things the patient's family can do that result in 30s delays. Sure removing one specific potential cause could have value, but it might not be worth it considering the downsides (someone will have to deal with the mess, sometimes the lone elderly who's already in pain but not 30s from death either)
I think too many people are focusing on the "emergency" part, when most of the interventions aren't about shoving off every second. Other commentators picked up on the ambulances rolling into intersections at a snail's pace while blasting their sirens full volume, because they care a lot more about secundary harm than reaching the hospital 10s earlier.
> (someone will have to deal with the mess, sometimes the lone elderly who's already in pain but not 30s from death either)
What mess? They're taking off their shoes regardless, and there is no additional mess being created by the resident not reorganizing the shoes of the paramedics.
There is no downsides here, just stop moving stuff around, pretty basic and no cost at all for stop doing so.
These people will handle emergencies, but at a notch or two below fully equiped firefighters breaking the door and ready to deal with everything falling apart.
For instance for an elderly couple living together but both being pretty weak, if one's oxygen level was falling they probably couldn't get to the hospital for a full checkup by themselves. They'll call for help, these people will come, fit the patient with anything needed to safely make the trip, and move them out of the appartment to the nearest hospital.
There will be no need to trash the floor in precipitation, and they might spend some time in the appartement to properly access the situation and make it safe. They'll still want to be able to evacuate the person quickly if/when needed, but there will be a lot more to consider as well.
Being surprised or not, and being pissed about it or not are orthogonal.
I'm also not surprised and do fault Google for it. We shouldn't give them a pass just because they're regular offenders, it should be the opposite IMHO.
What I am surprised about is that even with all of this effort that is put into tracking us, the majority of ads that I see don't even fit my demographic.
I think it's due to the lack of proper ads at a price point worth it. For instance your local fishing shop won't win the ad auction for your eyeballs against Binance or Tinder, even if you have absolutely no interest in the latter.
Is it false ?
As much as we can lament the current state of affair, we must acknowledge everything that has been thrown at any of the bigger companies has resulted in slap on the wrists at most.
At this exact moment in the US money is straight power, in it's rawest form.
reply