You can always sue, but this actually outlines damages much more clearly than most situations. It also (potentially, IANAL) could be filed in small claims court which greatly lowers the bar and avoids paying lawyers buckets of money for a class action.
My only question though - isn't it extremely simple to just publish the most open set of rules possible about your biometrics and not be on the hook for anything? Six flags isn't a necessary service so they can absolutely refuse your business, and if accepting their biometrics policy is the rules of doing business with them...it sounds comically easy for them to be protected.
So we're supposed to trust a bunch of LAWYERS to decide what news is real vs fake?... and you blame the 1-star reviews on, well it doesn't matter, does it?
NO no no no no no noonononono!!! My xyz news corp only tells the truth!
Didn't you hear that lil timmy fell down the well? They have video implicating lassie. It's extremely obvious and anyone who doubts it is a nazi, will be immediately unfriended/blocked, and outed on social media (ya know, from an account they can't see bc of the block) about how much of a terrible person they are so their job, spouse, children, friends, and pets can abandon them forever./s
But does anyone actually TRUST Microsoft enough to believe they're an appropriate arbiter of 'true news'?
Never mind that 'fake news' is now the exact same debate as the news topic itself in most cases. While it seems obvious to most people what would and wouldn't be 'fake news' that obviousness generally exists only in their personal perspective (and with the like-minded people they surround themselves with). There are countless examples these days where both sides know their opinio^^^^^^ facts are 'obviously true'... and plenty of cases where neither side is entirely wrong.
Letting someone, anyone, decide broadly that broad swaths of 'news' shouldn't get paid attention to is at least equally dangerous to the insanity coming out of the news outlets in the first place. It's just another type of censorship.
And obvious troll points aside, wouldn't this mean would also be flagged as fake news?:)
This is extremely common. Bigger corps refuse to redline any of their boilerplate hire agreements below the executive level (whatever titles that apply to within the company).
Granted, you can often just ignore things that are blatantly coercive or broad. For one, courts have thrown out many non-competes for exactly that reason and two, the PR around trying to enforce one if someone goes to the press over "poor me, can't feed my family because of this ridiculousness" is bad enough any sizable company knows when to quit... unless you are actually someone with highly specialized knowledge and compensated accordingly.
TBH, a non-complete should be backed by continued pay equal to the length. Let the parties opt out with agreement from the passive party. i.e. if you want to take a new job and have a one-year non-compete your company needs to either nullify it with you or let you quit with a guaranteed year of pay. On the flip, if a company wants to fire you then you can either keep the non-compete pay for a year or agree to nullify it and go job hunting.
Granted this is extremely unlikely to happen because businesses rule all and laws virtually always favor them.
Someone should start a company to do that - bring all the various streaming services under one platform. Maybe they can even create custom hardware and a single interface for all of it instead of the multiple different ones.
They they could offer a unified bill to simplify your life. You could add and remove packages or streaming services at will depending on your needs.
We need a name for them though. Hmm. Well everything is delivered by wires...or cables. Yes! Cables! Let's call them cable companies. Pretty unique idea, no?? I'll wait for the investors to come knocking, i'ma be rich soon!
In many cases, no. Impound fees are another revenue game (like speeding cameras and all) and quite a few of those fees are in the $100+ range initially plus $5-20 per day. That quickly reaches the retail cost of the scooter even excluding the refurb/refit/redeploy costs.
You mean lower than the specific towns populated by the early workers at IPO-win companies? Because otherwise NYC rent is NOT significantly lower than your example. Yes, out into brooklyn, queens, and SI you'll find significantly cheaper rent but you're cherry picking. Manhattan itself? Good luck...unless you score something rent controlled of course.
40k people will be noticed in general. It's a non-trivial increase. 40k people commuting to ONE SPECIFIC AREA will be massively noticed.
The train system here, will ostensibly running 24/7/365, is aged and over-burdened. There isn't rush hour capacity on many lines as it stands and this many people in a small area is well beyond what could be added. Rent and similar things are already over the top and this will simply make it more ridiculous. I'm very glad I'm nowhere near LIC in my daily life/commute. It will be a shit show for sure.
It's very short term over long term...enough so that most children could understand the stupidity of it all.
Providers will simply jack up broadband prices though. Be it via fees and surcharges or simply raising the service price, they'll eventually move to raise the minimum per-household spend back to where it was. Kind of stupid to think that though, as the US already has fairly expensive internet and this will just make us pay more for less once again.
You assume there's enough thermal mass in the laptop to make that relevant. While the laptop does clock in around 9 pounds, it's unlikely the cooling system would take very long at full power to reach equilibrium. So either they designed enough heat rejection capability or your permanently throttled in any high utilization situation.
Keep in mind the RTX 2080 sucks down more than twice the TDP of the CPU (215w vs 95w) so CPU waste heat isn't the main problem anyhow.
You do that every time you hand someone a check too. Routing and account number? Yep, right on there along with your name and address too. On every check. Ever. Forever...unless you change accounts that check from a 20 years ago has enough info to access your bank account funds.
So when you're done fear mongering, look at the broader picture for 2 seconds.
You hit on the key, and fear, of cable tv providers: They're petrified of becoming just data pipe providers.
To get any kind of incremental, or additional/up-sell/usage-based income, they'd have to impose data caps that aren't otherwise in place or needed today. People will see it for exactly what it is - monopolies taking direct advantage of their position to price fix in order to generate additional profit. Hopefully that will equally get their hand slapped or the monopolies broken somehow.
The other risk, with net neutrality dead, is they start charging data fees specific to applications. Which, while also scummy and obviously a revenue generation scam, more aligns with the actions of the politicians that the telecom industry bought lately.
A cert isn't going to stop a malicious or miswired cable/charger that dumps 20v on the data line from doing damage. Authorized or not, you have to handshake and that opens you up to a High voltage attack.
But that's not even vaguely what the intent is here. It's to prevent no-name manufacturers making and selling a cable/charger that's out of spec and devices getting damaged using it. In theory if it doesn't handshake with it's certs, it will default to whatever safe level (or no access) is default.
Mind you, they tried this with DVDs and BR encryption and we know how much of a failure/nightmare that proved to be. Now let's worry about the firmware of our cables and chargers being out of date/spec/etc.
Oh, and someone will get rich 'certifying' devices of course.
In shareholder communications like this you cannot lie by omission. You cannot lie by statement. You cannot intentionally mislead. There is an actual, literal, legal obligation to tell the truth. Doing otherwise has some stiff penalties attached - up to and including jail time.
That's why investors (and tech journalists) pour through these statements. They often have some amazing insight that companies otherwise don't share and it's why they so heavily influence stock prices AND aren't available to ANYONE until they're officially announced.
He's telling them because it's a risk to the business that came to light and he's obligated to share it.
Actually, even if those repair shops butcher phones Apple can't stop them. Once the hardware leaves Apple's hands, the consumer can do just about anything they want with it.
Apple and others ARE wrong to INTENTIONALLY design things not to be serviceable. Especially when there are many examples which are to a much greater degree. It's one thing if a design choice requires it - such as the physical rigidity requirements not permitting an easily removable back without significantly compromising size and weight (even without taking cost into account). It's another to sell an easily breakable headphones dongle because you equally saved money and minor complexity removing a headphones jack that people broadly want and use.
Appreciate the free advice. It's worth exactly what we all paid for it since many people already realized Samsung still has a headphones jack and jumped ship.
Why doesn't Apple offer to repair old iPhones? They could make extra money.
Uh, because it's rather obvious that they make a shitload more money by essentially refusing to repair these devices, and instead will do anything and everything to convince consumers that they need a new one.
Exactly this. Apple's brand power allows them some of the highest markups in their business segment. That's a lot harder to do when someone else can offer a similar, or even identical, service for a substantial discount. If you could be a iFone that looked and worked exactly the same as your iPhone but for 50% less money...who wouldn't?
You're confusing li-po with ni-cad. Ideal long-term storage for lithium-based batteries is ~60-80% SOC. They don't exactly die out' though - they fall below the minimum voltage that the charging circuits (i.e. safety mechanism) are designed to allow and thus you get the 'defective battery' blinky. On a larger scale - Tesla packs are exactly the same. If a pack goes below whatever single-digit % SOC it's 'dead' according to the computer and can't be charged.
But yes, tossing it on a charger every few months will keep the battery viable.
For all debts, public and private. It says so right on the bills.
Now, someone can refuse to SELL you something as you haven't incurred a debt at that point. But if you've been rendered a service (or generally own someone money outside of an immediate transactional service like retail sale) then cash is, as it says, legal tender for that debt.
It would make an interesting court case, but I highly doubt the US government would allow a court case saying it's OK to refuse US Legal Tender. If for no other reason than they have a very strong, vested interest in maintaining the $ as broadly accepted currency - it's a big part of the reason behind it's stability. If the country issuing it says it's OK to refuse it, that sets a very dangerous precedent.
tl;dr: Currency says it's for all debts and US Gov't wouldn't undermine the $ value/stability by allowing it to be refused. Story is a non-story. They have to take it or forego payment.
Slashdot Mirror
You can always sue, but this actually outlines damages much more clearly than most situations. It also (potentially, IANAL) could be filed in small claims court which greatly lowers the bar and avoids paying lawyers buckets of money for a class action.
My only question though - isn't it extremely simple to just publish the most open set of rules possible about your biometrics and not be on the hook for anything? Six flags isn't a necessary service so they can absolutely refuse your business, and if accepting their biometrics policy is the rules of doing business with them...it sounds comically easy for them to be protected.
So we're supposed to trust a bunch of LAWYERS to decide what news is real vs fake? ... and you blame the 1-star reviews on, well it doesn't matter, does it?
NO no no no no no noonononono!!! My xyz news corp only tells the truth!
Didn't you hear that lil timmy fell down the well? They have video implicating lassie. It's extremely obvious and anyone who doubts it is a nazi, will be immediately unfriended/blocked, and outed on social media (ya know, from an account they can't see bc of the block) about how much of a terrible person they are so their job, spouse, children, friends, and pets can abandon them forever. /s
But does anyone actually TRUST Microsoft enough to believe they're an appropriate arbiter of 'true news'?
Never mind that 'fake news' is now the exact same debate as the news topic itself in most cases. While it seems obvious to most people what would and wouldn't be 'fake news' that obviousness generally exists only in their personal perspective (and with the like-minded people they surround themselves with). There are countless examples these days where both sides know their opinio^^^^^^ facts are 'obviously true' ... and plenty of cases where neither side is entirely wrong.
Letting someone, anyone, decide broadly that broad swaths of 'news' shouldn't get paid attention to is at least equally dangerous to the insanity coming out of the news outlets in the first place. It's just another type of censorship.
And obvious troll points aside, wouldn't this mean would also be flagged as fake news? :)
According to what laws? I live in NYC and have never heard of this from anyone ... ever.
This is extremely common. Bigger corps refuse to redline any of their boilerplate hire agreements below the executive level (whatever titles that apply to within the company).
Granted, you can often just ignore things that are blatantly coercive or broad. For one, courts have thrown out many non-competes for exactly that reason and two, the PR around trying to enforce one if someone goes to the press over "poor me, can't feed my family because of this ridiculousness" is bad enough any sizable company knows when to quit ... unless you are actually someone with highly specialized knowledge and compensated accordingly.
TBH, a non-complete should be backed by continued pay equal to the length. Let the parties opt out with agreement from the passive party. i.e. if you want to take a new job and have a one-year non-compete your company needs to either nullify it with you or let you quit with a guaranteed year of pay. On the flip, if a company wants to fire you then you can either keep the non-compete pay for a year or agree to nullify it and go job hunting.
Granted this is extremely unlikely to happen because businesses rule all and laws virtually always favor them.
Someone should start a company to do that - bring all the various streaming services under one platform. Maybe they can even create custom hardware and a single interface for all of it instead of the multiple different ones.
They they could offer a unified bill to simplify your life. You could add and remove packages or streaming services at will depending on your needs.
We need a name for them though. Hmm. Well everything is delivered by wires...or cables. Yes! Cables! Let's call them cable companies. Pretty unique idea, no?? I'll wait for the investors to come knocking, i'ma be rich soon!
In many cases, no. Impound fees are another revenue game (like speeding cameras and all) and quite a few of those fees are in the $100+ range initially plus $5-20 per day. That quickly reaches the retail cost of the scooter even excluding the refurb/refit/redeploy costs.
You mean lower than the specific towns populated by the early workers at IPO-win companies? Because otherwise NYC rent is NOT significantly lower than your example. Yes, out into brooklyn, queens, and SI you'll find significantly cheaper rent but you're cherry picking. Manhattan itself? Good luck...unless you score something rent controlled of course.
I DO live in NYC.
40k people will be noticed in general. It's a non-trivial increase.
40k people commuting to ONE SPECIFIC AREA will be massively noticed.
The train system here, will ostensibly running 24/7/365, is aged and over-burdened. There isn't rush hour capacity on many lines as it stands and this many people in a small area is well beyond what could be added. Rent and similar things are already over the top and this will simply make it more ridiculous. I'm very glad I'm nowhere near LIC in my daily life/commute. It will be a shit show for sure.
It's very short term over long term...enough so that most children could understand the stupidity of it all.
Providers will simply jack up broadband prices though. Be it via fees and surcharges or simply raising the service price, they'll eventually move to raise the minimum per-household spend back to where it was. Kind of stupid to think that though, as the US already has fairly expensive internet and this will just make us pay more for less once again.
Go team USA .... /s
You assume there's enough thermal mass in the laptop to make that relevant. While the laptop does clock in around 9 pounds, it's unlikely the cooling system would take very long at full power to reach equilibrium. So either they designed enough heat rejection capability or your permanently throttled in any high utilization situation.
Keep in mind the RTX 2080 sucks down more than twice the TDP of the CPU (215w vs 95w) so CPU waste heat isn't the main problem anyhow.
You do that every time you hand someone a check too. Routing and account number? Yep, right on there along with your name and address too. On every check. Ever. Forever...unless you change accounts that check from a 20 years ago has enough info to access your bank account funds.
So when you're done fear mongering, look at the broader picture for 2 seconds.
You hit on the key, and fear, of cable tv providers: They're petrified of becoming just data pipe providers.
To get any kind of incremental, or additional/up-sell/usage-based income, they'd have to impose data caps that aren't otherwise in place or needed today. People will see it for exactly what it is - monopolies taking direct advantage of their position to price fix in order to generate additional profit. Hopefully that will equally get their hand slapped or the monopolies broken somehow.
The other risk, with net neutrality dead, is they start charging data fees specific to applications. Which, while also scummy and obviously a revenue generation scam, more aligns with the actions of the politicians that the telecom industry bought lately.
Yes, because reflective vs emissive screens are *exactly* the same. /s
Well yes, of course.
But that costs money as does the implementation.
When you're selling cheap cables that are even more cheaply made...you often don't spend that money.
A cert isn't going to stop a malicious or miswired cable/charger that dumps 20v on the data line from doing damage. Authorized or not, you have to handshake and that opens you up to a High voltage attack.
But that's not even vaguely what the intent is here. It's to prevent no-name manufacturers making and selling a cable/charger that's out of spec and devices getting damaged using it. In theory if it doesn't handshake with it's certs, it will default to whatever safe level (or no access) is default.
Mind you, they tried this with DVDs and BR encryption and we know how much of a failure/nightmare that proved to be. Now let's worry about the firmware of our cables and chargers being out of date/spec/etc.
Oh, and someone will get rich 'certifying' devices of course.
Uhm no. That's not how it works at all.
In shareholder communications like this you cannot lie by omission. You cannot lie by statement. You cannot intentionally mislead. There is an actual, literal, legal obligation to tell the truth. Doing otherwise has some stiff penalties attached - up to and including jail time.
That's why investors (and tech journalists) pour through these statements. They often have some amazing insight that companies otherwise don't share and it's why they so heavily influence stock prices AND aren't available to ANYONE until they're officially announced.
He's telling them because it's a risk to the business that came to light and he's obligated to share it.
Except not, because apple has the hardware locked down and there's the minor matter of firmware/software to contend with.
But good analogy failure.
in 50 years today's iPhone will be a museum relic.
Actually, even if those repair shops butcher phones Apple can't stop them. Once the hardware leaves Apple's hands, the consumer can do just about anything they want with it.
Apple and others ARE wrong to INTENTIONALLY design things not to be serviceable. Especially when there are many examples which are to a much greater degree. It's one thing if a design choice requires it - such as the physical rigidity requirements not permitting an easily removable back without significantly compromising size and weight (even without taking cost into account). It's another to sell an easily breakable headphones dongle because you equally saved money and minor complexity removing a headphones jack that people broadly want and use.
Appreciate the free advice. It's worth exactly what we all paid for it since many people already realized Samsung still has a headphones jack and jumped ship.
Why doesn't Apple offer to repair old iPhones? They could make extra money.
Uh, because it's rather obvious that they make a shitload more money by essentially refusing to repair these devices, and instead will do anything and everything to convince consumers that they need a new one.
Exactly this. Apple's brand power allows them some of the highest markups in their business segment. That's a lot harder to do when someone else can offer a similar, or even identical, service for a substantial discount. If you could be a iFone that looked and worked exactly the same as your iPhone but for 50% less money...who wouldn't?
You're confusing li-po with ni-cad. Ideal long-term storage for lithium-based batteries is ~60-80% SOC. They don't exactly die out' though - they fall below the minimum voltage that the charging circuits (i.e. safety mechanism) are designed to allow and thus you get the 'defective battery' blinky. On a larger scale - Tesla packs are exactly the same. If a pack goes below whatever single-digit % SOC it's 'dead' according to the computer and can't be charged.
But yes, tossing it on a charger every few months will keep the battery viable.
If they refuse to accept cash, they're refusing payment. Document it with a cell phone video and leave.
Equally, businesses (I believe) are required to issue receipts.
For all debts, public and private. It says so right on the bills.
Now, someone can refuse to SELL you something as you haven't incurred a debt at that point. But if you've been rendered a service (or generally own someone money outside of an immediate transactional service like retail sale) then cash is, as it says, legal tender for that debt.
It would make an interesting court case, but I highly doubt the US government would allow a court case saying it's OK to refuse US Legal Tender. If for no other reason than they have a very strong, vested interest in maintaining the $ as broadly accepted currency - it's a big part of the reason behind it's stability. If the country issuing it says it's OK to refuse it, that sets a very dangerous precedent.
tl;dr: Currency says it's for all debts and US Gov't wouldn't undermine the $ value/stability by allowing it to be refused. Story is a non-story. They have to take it or forego payment.
They could as a one-off, but I believe this breaks some cash-advance rules. Meh.
On a larger scale, this will get you flagged for money laundering and/or tax evasion.