> What's missed is that neither contributors nor maintainers are usually paid for their effort
To be clear, the Linux kernel is mostly developed by well paid employees of various tech companies that need to steer the future of the Linux kernel, even if only to write drivers.
Last year our bakery business got blocked from Google Maps. Reason: Your business is not eligible...
Yep, apparently a brick and mortar bakery isn't eligible for Google Maps. Obviously bogus. I appealed over and over again, rereading the rules, watching every dumb YouTube video, fixing every minor imagined transgression I could think of and each time just got another BS automated "your business is not eligible...".
Pretty much gave up them my partner decided to try one more time. In Vietnamese.
We had both been trying, she in Vietnamese, me in English, but this time she tried it at about 10:30pm local time and apparently it got routed to a bored Vietnamese speaker in the California help center, who fixed it immediately.
So it is possible but it'll take some weird combination of luck and timing.
Damn! That is so dystopic to me. The future of businesses determined by the will of some customer support interpretations of bogus rules. Ain't that a bit black mirroresque?
I worked at a job where we had to maintain an app for Apple's platform. We would make some minor bugfix based on user feedback and submit the app. They would come back with a denial that was based on changes or features introduced years ago. We would go tweak that specific feature in some way, resubmit and it would pass.
It's also possible/likely they're using discrimination. It's cheaper to avoid lawsuits and PR disasters by ensuring they respond faster to minority customers. That and/or Vietnamese customers tend to have higher spend/conversion, so Google gives them better service. Or her husband's Google account had some kind of score based on previous spend/statistical probability that determined he deserved better service.
I think there is zero chance these companies aren't using LLMs to sort out the "desirable" customers from the undesirables. Google in particular knows almost everything about us.
Thanks to cumulative technical progress what used to be the domain of state actors has now trickled down to big business (on some level this is a joke, but also I'm dead serious). Someday it will trickle down to the bakery.
Several years ago, one of my Gmail accounts (mainly used for non-serious purposes, such as registering on gaming forums) was stolen due to a password leak. I received an login alert via a forwarded email, but since I hadn’t set up a recovery email address, I lost control of the account. I couldn’t even find any way to reach out to someone to take action and recover my email account.
All you can do it post a thread on the support forums, and nothing happen anymore;
I think for ordinary users (rather than developers or merchants), this is even worse.
When you are logged in to the Google Play Developer console there is an area to do the verification and once you get to a stage that breaks down (as explained) it just has a support form, which then happens via email.
I agree. The answer is regulation that outlines rules of engagement for "free" (you are the product) online services.
Australia is famous for having very strong consumer protection laws for purchased products (physical goods). It has been discussed many times here. How does this work in the digital universe?
Steam (ie Valve) used to pretty much not give refunds for games.
That changed after Australian's Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) dragged them through Federal Court for it, comprehensively winning against Steam:
Thus the "refunds if you've not played for more than ~2 hours" policy that Steam then implemented (globally).
Probably the relevant quote to answer your question about how things work in the digital universe:
> "This important precedent confirms the ACCC's view that overseas-based companies selling to Australian consumers must abide by our laws. If customers buy a product online that is faulty, they are entitled to the same right to a repair, replacement, or refund, as if they'd walked into a store," ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.
The real problem with veganism is that you are a social outcast around normies. That was the biggest problem that I had. Also, veganism is essentially a "fundamentalist" way of thinking -- all or nothing. Now, I advocate for people to experiment with eating less meat and animal products, not zero. Even if people cut the amount of meat they ate by 20%, it would have a huge environmental impact. Also, the type of meat you eat also has a large environmental impact: Consider beef vs chicken.
Agree. Everything else is easy: taste, nutrition, cheap shopping... but if you decide to exclude animal products, prepare to face ostracism and you'll need to learn to cope with that. A simple and effective way is to ignore the blames and regards, let them flow to the ground without catching them.
Some people will get angry at you because you tried to do something good to much:
- not trying: that's ok, everybody is free to keep his life as-is
- trying 0-90%: that's ok, everybody is free to try doing some good
- trying 90-100%: you're a fundamentalist, you can't change the world
My advice: don't argue:
- "that's extremist" / "that's not natural" / [...] => That's an opinion, you won't change it. Smile and route to another subject.
- "why are you [an extremist/unnatural/priest/...]?" => Question. Don't try to rant the full manifesto, you won't change their opinion neither. But if you feel confortable you may clarify a few inches of incomprehension :
- Have you heard of vegansociety's definition[0]? I don't consider myself as an extremist.
- I find Tofu very tasty!
- I won't try to change your habits, just doing thinks the way I like them better.
Golden rule: don't get upset. You're always free to not being confortable discussing your choices.
> Nutrition is run on fads - see whole fitness and healthy food bullshit.
You raise an interesting point. I watched a YouTube video recently of someone walking around a large US supermarket pointing out all of the processed foods that now claimed to be high protein. It is nuts!
I wonder what will come after the protein boom? My guess: Fiber is back because you need to "fibermaxx" when taking GLP-1 antagonists. I can remember some of the funny adverts in the 1980s of old people taking fiber supplements to "stay regular". (See SNL comedy skit "Colon Blow" for a good laugh.)
Naive question: What is wrong with this? Lots of gov't agencies in highly developed countries operate similarly. User fees account for a non-trivial portion of department budgets. A more simple example: Should the Dept of Motor Vehicles (DMV) charge zero, low, medium, high, or infinity money to get a driver's license?
In principle there is nothing wrong with it, as long as the FDA or other testing body retains an appropriate impartiality or lack of bias (perceived or real). The issue, however, would be a lax system that allows revolving door access between the approval body and the industry that is seeking approval. Ironically, the common refrain becomes that their industry specific knowledge means they "must" be the only possible candidates for the role, which just so conveniently starts the revolving door swinging between leadership in industry and upper roles in regulatory bodies.
Most green vegetables you can eat unlimited amount and stay healthy. They are absolutely "good" food. (Please don't reply with something trite like "oh, but what about the pesticide residues?") The same can be said for high fiber (soluable and insoluable) fruits like apples, oranges, and bananas. As long as eaten whole (minus skin for oranges and bananas), it is almost impossible to overeat these and they are absolutely "good" foods.
I agree 100% with your follow-up. In the last 30 years of medical research, I do not recall anything but negative health results from eating red meat (beef). The real culprit is saturated fat. It is the cigarettes of food. There is almost no healthy level to consume, so keep it to 20g per day or less.
Reading this chain of responses from the original is making my internal bullshit alarm (Brandolini's law) go "wee woo wee woo".
> The real culprit is saturated fat. It is the cigarettes of food. There is almost no healthy level to consume
Not at all an expert, but from what I understood saturated fat isn't particularly good but it's not “no healthy level to consume” either (fortunately because you practically cannot avoid them).
I think you're confusing them with trans-insaturated fat (which I don't think are as bad as cigarettes either, but are still bad).
This is untrue. There are 100s of YouTube videos of amateur body builders preparing for a show. They are able to maintain their muscle mass while in a calorie deficit. Yes, it is insanely hard, but it can be done.
This is crazy. You lost 28 lbs (15% of your body weight) in 10 weeks. Why did your doctor to allow you to continue? By any common sense, that is an unhealthy pace to lose body weight.
It seems to be more complicated (or unpredictable?) than that:
> In this study, rapid weight loss was associated with the loss of kidney function in males with normal weight, and with improvement of kidney function in overweight males.
> Our study showed that BMI and BMI change were not associated with eGFR change in females.
reply