anyone who's tried to execute a change or deliver an outcome will always find one or two dissenting voices in any organisation of scale.
Absolutely true. And it's equally true that it's foolish to not take those dissenting opinions very seriously (even if, after careful consideration, they don't change your plans).
In any organization, there is a strong "rah-rah" tendency, and people tend to suppress their own doubts. Nobody wants to be a wet blanket or potentially risk their career by not seeming to be a "team player". So the voices of those who point out problems need to be listened to much more carefully than the voices of those who say "everything's great".
That's funny, because when I read this the first thing I thought was that he sounded like one of the new-school engineers. You know, the ones with the motto "move fast and break things".
It's the integration. One remote to control everything whether it is the physical remote or the mobile app. The mobile app can turn the tv off and control the volume.
My entertainment system meets those requirements. I can do all of those things with a physical remote, with a mobile app, or even through a web browser. Not a smart TV in sight.
I'll admit, I pieced my system together myself -- it wasn't a single thing that you can just run out and buy. But what I've gained is that I have all the features of a smart TV (and more), I can replace individual components if they break without having to replace the entire thing, I'm not reliant on any outside services (I can use them if I choose, but nobody can accidentally brick anything or force updates on me), and the whole thing cost about half of what smart TVs go for.
So, I guess what you're saying is the appeal is pure convenience. Which is fair -- nothing wrong with that at all. But you are giving a lot of stuff up for it.
Self-driving cars are still a long way from being good enough to put into widespread use. I imagine that people are judging based on the state of the tech as it is right now.
If that's the case, then I'm one of them -- I don't want to ride in a self-driving car as they currently exist. But once they get better, I won't have an issue.
And I hope they get better! My dream is that one day I'll be able to avoid owning a car entirely, but still have access to one on demand. Uber and taxis don't do it for me, but self-driving cars just might.
if I want to try a really interesting bottle of beer, that's the best place to go.
Sounds like you need some good beer stores! In my area, Whole Foods has a decent, but far from exceptional, selection compared to many places within walking distance of them.
But the places that have the best selection also tend to look like run-down 7/11 wannabes, so there's no social cache to shopping there.
If there's one universal truth, it's that those lower on the economic ladder may bitch about their betters, but if the opportunity comes to buy the same goods and services, they'll ignore the irony and hypocrisy, and jump at the opportunity.
Well, it's more like a "strong tendency" than "universal truth", but your point is well taken.
On saturday here there are markets selling bootlegged shit on the side of the street. Even they accept electronic payment including paying with my phone. You won't see that in the USA very frequently.
I have seen them in the US before, but it's been a while. I used to even see panhandlers who took cards. I assume that they stopped because there weren't enough people stupid enough to allow them to swipe their card.
Amazon has blown this acquisition. 'Whole Paycheck' was for those people who like to impress each other with how much the overpay (for the same stuff).
Not always the same stuff. I don't know where else you could pay top dollar for a jar of water with a couple of asparagus spears in it.
The idea of a single TV that can be wall mounted with nothing but power running to it is attractive to lots of people.
And can easily be accomplished without resorting to a "smart" TV. You can get cheap sticks that plug into your TV's HDMI connectors, talk over WiFi, and don't need any additional cabling at all.
If you want more horsepower than that, you can obtain small, boxes that attach to the back of the TV, get their power from the same cable as your TV, and talk via WiFi. Still no additional cabling.
whether it is a relatively rare issue that is being blown out of proportion.
I'm not so sure about "blown out of proportion", even if it is rare. It serves to highlight the risk and folly of buying a "smart" TV -- or, for that matter, any expensive thing that includes a computer you have little control over, that depends on third-party services, and that and that you don't intend to replace very often (I'm looking at you, automobiles).
What made it enticing? You can have your Roku without having a smart TV -- and regardless of how awesome Roku's code may be, that doesn't mean your TV will continue to support it over time.
The problem is most people don't have the time/inclination/skill to evaluate updates.
Yes, but those people should do what used to be common practice: when an update rolls around, don't apply it for a few weeks and keep an eye on the internet to see if people start reporting a problem. If not, then go ahead.
It's not perfect, but better than blindly accepting every update as it rolls out.
What's bizarre is that these devices are all running 'stock' software from the factory. If they test the update at all, it ought to work the same on all of them, no?
No. Even if every model ships with the same software out of the factory, there are hardware differences between models (that the stock software is accounting for).
If you update that software, it is important to test it with all of the hardware variations that you are intending to support. What software the device shipped with is only a minor factor in this.
I don't know about AccuWeather, but plenty of companies do a cost/benefit calculation to decide whether or not they're going to do something terrible. If they figure that they'll end up making more money than they'll lose when they get caught, then it's full steam ahead.
I mean, maybe I'm just naive, but don't most people just assume that your phones/apps are leaky and not rely on them to say that they're protecting your privacy?
They should, but I think most people just don't think about it at all.
I consider all programs that I have not written to be security risks, personally. That's why I firewall off every piece of software by default.
Is there a legitimate reason an application should be able to access your wireless network's name and/or BSSID?
Sure. There are tons of useful (to the user) things that can be done if you have that ability. If I couldn't make or use apps that accessed that information, I'd consider the platform broken.
The key, though, is that the user must remain in control and be able to prevent apps from getting that (or any) data if they choose.
Probably worse. It seems very likely to me that what a developer puts into the product for one platform was also put into the product on other platforms.
That activity became offensive only because they were caught selling it to a 3rd party.
I disagree. I think it became offensive when the app went out of its way to gather location information after the user specifically and intentionally disabled location information.
Slashdot Mirror
anyone who's tried to execute a change or deliver an outcome will always find one or two dissenting voices in any organisation of scale.
Absolutely true. And it's equally true that it's foolish to not take those dissenting opinions very seriously (even if, after careful consideration, they don't change your plans).
In any organization, there is a strong "rah-rah" tendency, and people tend to suppress their own doubts. Nobody wants to be a wet blanket or potentially risk their career by not seeming to be a "team player". So the voices of those who point out problems need to be listened to much more carefully than the voices of those who say "everything's great".
This is MBA behavior, not engineer behavior.
That's funny, because when I read this the first thing I thought was that he sounded like one of the new-school engineers. You know, the ones with the motto "move fast and break things".
It's the integration. One remote to control everything whether it is the physical remote or the mobile app. The mobile app can turn the tv off and control the volume.
My entertainment system meets those requirements. I can do all of those things with a physical remote, with a mobile app, or even through a web browser. Not a smart TV in sight.
I'll admit, I pieced my system together myself -- it wasn't a single thing that you can just run out and buy. But what I've gained is that I have all the features of a smart TV (and more), I can replace individual components if they break without having to replace the entire thing, I'm not reliant on any outside services (I can use them if I choose, but nobody can accidentally brick anything or force updates on me), and the whole thing cost about half of what smart TVs go for.
So, I guess what you're saying is the appeal is pure convenience. Which is fair -- nothing wrong with that at all. But you are giving a lot of stuff up for it.
I used to strongly feel that way. Then automatic transmissions improved to the point where they really can do it better than me.
But the question is *can* they be perfect? Or *will* they be perfect? Or even *when* will they be perfect?
The question isn't if/when they can be perfect. The question is if/when they can be less flawed than humans are at the task.
Self-driving cars are still a long way from being good enough to put into widespread use. I imagine that people are judging based on the state of the tech as it is right now.
If that's the case, then I'm one of them -- I don't want to ride in a self-driving car as they currently exist. But once they get better, I won't have an issue.
And I hope they get better! My dream is that one day I'll be able to avoid owning a car entirely, but still have access to one on demand. Uber and taxis don't do it for me, but self-driving cars just might.
if I want to try a really interesting bottle of beer, that's the best place to go.
Sounds like you need some good beer stores! In my area, Whole Foods has a decent, but far from exceptional, selection compared to many places within walking distance of them.
But the places that have the best selection also tend to look like run-down 7/11 wannabes, so there's no social cache to shopping there.
If there's one universal truth, it's that those lower on the economic ladder may bitch about their betters, but if the opportunity comes to buy the same goods and services, they'll ignore the irony and hypocrisy, and jump at the opportunity.
Well, it's more like a "strong tendency" than "universal truth", but your point is well taken.
On saturday here there are markets selling bootlegged shit on the side of the street. Even they accept electronic payment including paying with my phone. You won't see that in the USA very frequently.
I have seen them in the US before, but it's been a while. I used to even see panhandlers who took cards. I assume that they stopped because there weren't enough people stupid enough to allow them to swipe their card.
People go to Whole Foods because they want specialty stuff that regular chains don't carry not for low prices.
I think that a very large percentage of Whole Foods customers shop there because it indicates status, too. Also not value shoppers.
Amazon has blown this acquisition. 'Whole Paycheck' was for those people who like to impress each other with how much the overpay (for the same stuff).
Not always the same stuff. I don't know where else you could pay top dollar for a jar of water with a couple of asparagus spears in it.
We are getting more rare, but -- at least where I tend to roam -- I do see them around.
The idea of a single TV that can be wall mounted with nothing but power running to it is attractive to lots of people.
And can easily be accomplished without resorting to a "smart" TV. You can get cheap sticks that plug into your TV's HDMI connectors, talk over WiFi, and don't need any additional cabling at all.
If you want more horsepower than that, you can obtain small, boxes that attach to the back of the TV, get their power from the same cable as your TV, and talk via WiFi. Still no additional cabling.
(will the consumer pay $100 more to pick up a smart TV than a dumb one?).
I would. But then, I think that adding the "smarts" to a TV actively reduces its value rather than enhances it.
If you live near me, you will. I intentionally run an open WiFi AP as a courtesy to my neighbors. People like me are everywhere.
what if they just made it so without connection it won't boot or it needs to phone home occasionally.
Then it goes back to the store.
whether it is a relatively rare issue that is being blown out of proportion.
I'm not so sure about "blown out of proportion", even if it is rare. It serves to highlight the risk and folly of buying a "smart" TV -- or, for that matter, any expensive thing that includes a computer you have little control over, that depends on third-party services, and that and that you don't intend to replace very often (I'm looking at you, automobiles).
What made it enticing? You can have your Roku without having a smart TV -- and regardless of how awesome Roku's code may be, that doesn't mean your TV will continue to support it over time.
The problem is most people don't have the time/inclination/skill to evaluate updates.
Yes, but those people should do what used to be common practice: when an update rolls around, don't apply it for a few weeks and keep an eye on the internet to see if people start reporting a problem. If not, then go ahead.
It's not perfect, but better than blindly accepting every update as it rolls out.
What's bizarre is that these devices are all running 'stock' software from the factory. If they test the update at all, it ought to work the same on all of them, no?
No. Even if every model ships with the same software out of the factory, there are hardware differences between models (that the stock software is accounting for).
If you update that software, it is important to test it with all of the hardware variations that you are intending to support. What software the device shipped with is only a minor factor in this.
I don't know about AccuWeather, but plenty of companies do a cost/benefit calculation to decide whether or not they're going to do something terrible. If they figure that they'll end up making more money than they'll lose when they get caught, then it's full steam ahead.
I mean, maybe I'm just naive, but don't most people just assume that your phones/apps are leaky and not rely on them to say that they're protecting your privacy?
They should, but I think most people just don't think about it at all.
I consider all programs that I have not written to be security risks, personally. That's why I firewall off every piece of software by default.
Is there a legitimate reason an application should be able to access your wireless network's name and/or BSSID?
Sure. There are tons of useful (to the user) things that can be done if you have that ability. If I couldn't make or use apps that accessed that information, I'd consider the platform broken.
The key, though, is that the user must remain in control and be able to prevent apps from getting that (or any) data if they choose.
Probably worse. It seems very likely to me that what a developer puts into the product for one platform was also put into the product on other platforms.
That activity became offensive only because they were caught selling it to a 3rd party.
I disagree. I think it became offensive when the app went out of its way to gather location information after the user specifically and intentionally disabled location information.