For the one-way street example, sure. But what happens when someone incorrectly marks the bridge under construction as a passable road and several hundred commuters plunge off the end of it like lemmings?
Oh man, I remember when I found that site about 8 years ago and lost about a solid week reading everything I could find in it. I kind of wish I could discover it for the first time again. It sort of ruined the "space sim" genre of games for me (or maybe more accurately: gave me the material I needed to explain why I was always inexplicably disappointed with them). On the plus side, it made a great resource for writing a hard SF short story for some BS english class I had to take, introduced me to some great hard SF books, and got me reading the Freefall webcomic.
The other issue arises when developers decide to screw over the original backers. Release the bare minimum to get their kickstarter payments, then do a 180 on all their promises (because who cares about the original backers, they already got their money from those guys. Time to find a new audience).
The summary focuses on being able to see through pages, but how fast can it scan them? Assuming cost/complexity factors don't make it prohibitive, I could see something like this being used to rapidly digitize a printed book without having to pause to turn pages or slice the spine open to feed them individually through a scanner.
Interesting study, but it begs the question of what happened to bookstores? Most communities have seen a huge contraction in brick and mortar bookstores.
The most common explanation is that many people buy from Amazon rather than go to a bookstore.
The other explanation is that the study is total BS. Asking if someone has read a single physical book in the space of a year is a terrible question to gauge the question of physical books vs ebooks. I generally read somewhere between 20 and 30 books a year, and since the advent of ebooks at least 90% of those haven't been physical copies. Despite that, my answer to the survey would could towards physical books still being in high demand, nevermind that I'm only buying them at a 10th of the rate I was before.
Sixty-five percent of adults in the United States said they had read a printed book in the past year, the same percentage that said so in 2012
That's a terrible question. Considering that most people who bother to read books even when they're not being forced to generally read much much more than one book per year, it's not really giving a very accurate picture. I got my first e-reader in 2012, and have hundreds of ebooks in my library now (all of them read). Despite all of that, I can still say I've read at least one physical book per year. It's just that the percentage of my reading done on physical books has dropped from 100% to 1%.
I have no idea, you were talking about protocols so I thought you had something in mind. Replace it with whatever other slightly off looking malicious link you'd like if it makes more sense that way.
And to riff off an old tech support joke, they're called foot pedals, not mice.
Unrelated to the discussion thread but completely related to that anecdote: I knew an electrical engineer with bad carpel tunnel who made a foot pedal for clicking the mouse buttons. He also stripped the guts from a gyro mouse and mounted them on a headset. I think the controls were basically left foot to click, right foot to tell the gyro mouse to start tracking, and then he'd hunt and peck type holding a stylus in each fist. Watching him operate his computer was hilarious. His head would be twitching and jerking all over the place to an accompaniment of seemingly random foot stomps and fits of what looked like overhanded stabbing of the keyboard with a pair of pencils.
Yeah you're exactly right, the half of the population who click on anything would totally not do that if only they could see the protocol. Because that's what was keeping everyone safe for so many years back in the halcyon days of innocence when everyone used IE6 and malware was non-existent.
Even if you're dumb enough to click anything and everything, your brain is pretty good at pattern matching. Even the worst offenders when it comes to irresponsible computer usage generally at least subconsciously notice when a URL says something like somenefariousprotocol://Bank0fAmerica.com instead of https://bankofamerica.com./ Speaking from some pretty extensive experience scamming people in EvE Online, I can tell you that even the slightest deviation from what's expected by the target (even if it's not something they're normally consciously aware of) is often enough to jog even the dumbest persons brain into suspicious mode (and if not that, at least a more observative mode) and ruin the entire thing.
I have found that the biggest problem some people have with Linux is they try to impose Windows on it
That's hardly the issue here, but go ahead and keep responding to things I didn't write (or even imply).
How on earth did you do the install? I haven't done an install in years that didn't require an internet connection to do it. You need to connect to the internet, in the first place, so it is remarkable that your connection and install would kill the driver.
Sumpin seriously odd here.
I don't even know if it's worth continuing this discussion at this point. Offline installs are still a thing, and there's usually (though distressingly less now for laptops) the option of installing with a physical cable plugged in as it's generally the wireless that's not recognized. A simple google search for "linux wireless adapter not recognized" will turn up all kinds of results, and you'll even notice that there are often a multitude of different ways of fixing it for the same adapter, making it a game of russian roulette as to which one will work and which one will leave your computer in some weird state that will bite you in the ass 3 months down the road.
Note that out of many dozens of installs, that's it. That is also less issues than my Windows installs.
Again, the context of that was just odd issues that tend to invite tech savvy people to try and fix them (and subsequently break things), not that the odd issue is somehow making it unusable. And if you're going to claim that an OS (I don't care which OS) runs flawlessly 99% of the time on all of your computers without a single little nuisance thing requiring your attention to fix, you're a liar.
And no, I've never had to reinstall Linux. Windows? Just about once a year.
My hdds tend to fail before I need a windows reinstall. So far every single linux install I've done to date has gotten mangled from my attempts to do things on it (even simple things, such as installing steam on debian) that the only help I can get from the support forums is to just reinstall.
I'm the luckiest guy on earth.
Either that or you have a bad memory. I haven't once installed ubuntu or debian on a laptop where at least 1 semi-important bit of hardware wasn't recognized, or was only partially supported. The most common offender was the network card(s) not showing up at all, followed by the touchpad/keyboard buttons not being fully recognized, and then occasionally the video drivers. More often than not the fix involved screwing with repos to install some non-free driver, at which point the system would seem to have more and more things broken every time I updated.
The worst problem I've had with Linux is a lubuntu install that doesn't care what I set for wakeup. After five minutes of inactivity, I have to log in again.
That's exactly the kind of minor issue I'm talking about. A non-tech savvy person wouldn't know the first place to start and just live with it. I like to at least attempt fixing those sorts of things, but generally the attempt ends up breaking more things than it fixes.
I'd argue back that I am by virtue of my savvy - of which I do not claim expert status at all - that I will use the best tool for the task I am doing. And Windows is not always - in fact for my line of work, not often the best tool for the job. And really, OSX very seldom has issues that requires a total reinstall. That's a Windows thing. The only time I have ever done that on a Mac was when a hard drive failed - sort of understandable in that case. People that have problems because of keyboard layout are seldom that tech savvy. Just experience talking, and that could be wrong.
If you'd actually bothered to read my post, you'd notice I never made claims about any of the things you talk about here. I even specifically talked about linux, no mention of OSX anywhere. And as far as complete reinstalls, unless you're familiar to the point that you don't need to google for solutions, it's extremely easy to bork linux to the point where it's easier to do that than to try and reverse each of the fixes you googled (and perhaps only got partway through before realizing it wouldn't work) for a 50-50 chance of the system never working quite right after you go through all the effort.
I would also argue that your minor nuisance issues ar enot even remotely a nuisance for some of us - just a difference.
I'm not talking about differences, I'm talking about actual problems such as my linux install not recognizing the brightness control keys on my laptop, or some bug with the wireless drivers that causes the card to glitch out and reconnect a few times a day. The sorts of problems that are annoying, but you can live with.
I'd argue that it's easier to get along with linux if you're less computer savvy (assuming there's someone to set it up for you). A non-computer savvy person is a lot more willing to live with minor nuisance issues and chalk them up to being caused by some computerey thing they don't care about. Someone who is tech savvy knows they don't have to live with minor nuisance issues, and is generally going to be a lot less forgiving when it comes to minor problems. When that person attempts to fix said problems themselves they usually end up breaking other things, and won't grudgingly decide to just live with the original problem until 3 wasted weekends and 2 total reinstalls later.
Assuming the tech is developed to the point of being relatively portable, it'd be easier to get away with spoofing an autopilot system than a human. Someone standing on the side of the road shining a laser pointer at your car is pretty easy to spot by both you and other bystanders. Someone standing on the side of the road wearing a backpack with a radar jamming device isn't quite as obvious. Pick a convenient corner with a big dropoff, stand there and watch a tesla or two go over the edge, then walk away. No one will know what happened until tesla analyzes the logs weeks later, at which point you're long gone and nobody even remembers you were there.
Yep. I strongly suspect we'll see flights of cheap drones accompanying a single human long before we see flights of drones operating under full autonomy. Assuming they can fly in a straight line and maintain relative positions they'd be perfect for assisting in communications, target detection/tracking (iirc having two radars spaced somewhat apart while still working together is useful for a lot of things), and even flying tight formation to screw with enemy detection and tracking. They could even act as somewhat expendable decoys for use against incoming missiles.
And when the company decides the profit is greater than the cost of the lawsuit? Is the corporate attorney going to stand up and say "the case has merit and my company did the wrong thing, it's just that we made a bunch of money from it so we don't care"? I don't know about you, but I'd be willing to bet that they're *still* going to stand up there and say the case has no merit, despite have predicted the lawsuits well before the decision was made to proceed anyway.
And? The secretary of state is supposed to understand how to properly handle classified information, but it's not like anything meaningful happened when they didn't. The rules clearly don't apply to these people, so why should this be any different?
Most drivers are pretty aware of their periphery, I've had people try to merge into me before and reacted appropriately. The only reason the car had to react to save him is because he was letting the autopilot drive and wasn't really paying attention. Exactly the thing that got him killed.
This. A lot of the autonomous car proponents (and programmers in general for that matter, a lot of my co-workers are pretty scary drivers) seem to be under the impression that being "in the right" means you're somehow not going to have an accident and/or you'll magically be spared in the event of having one just because you had right of way and the other guy was an idiot. It never seems to occur to them that even accidents that would be 100% the other guys fault can be avoided if *they* actually pay attention not just for themselves, but for the other drivers on the road who may be distracted.
I drive a small car that people often don't see, and as such I'm constantly watching what other drivers are doing and driving as if they're actively trying to kill me. Taking this example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?... . I remember specifically thinking the green car might try to merge into me and very intentionally made sure I still had an escape to the left as I was making the lane change. Had I not reacted and been hit, it would have 100% been the other guys fault and I'd have had the camera footage to prove it. However, my car would have been devalued (if not totaled), in the shop for weeks, and I could have been injured. I'd rather avoid an accident than get into one, even if it would have been the other guys fault. In my example, I wonder if an autonomous car would have done the same. It would definitely be easier for Tesla to just let it happen so they could point and say "look at all of these terrible drivers hitting our cars" than to troll through years worth of autopilot footage looking for examples of accidents that were prevented due to their cars planning out moves way in advance under the assumption that other drivers are morons.
Except with the direction consumer goods have been going lately and the decline of actual ownership (look at cell phones), there's a very clear precedent for this sort of thing happening. Additionally, what happens when tesla pulls a microsoft and refuses updates to your vehicle in order to forcibly make you buy the next model? Your unupdated vehicle would now be a risk to other cars on the road, and your state could then compel you to retire the car via refusing to renew the registration.
You're getting way too technical. The easiest way to defeat the cameras is to cover your face up with whatever you have on hand. Or don't even bother covering it up. It's not like they're going to distribute HD pictures door to door asking if anyone's seen the guy who vandalized the parking surveillance robot (and faces aren't fingerprints, I guarantee you that in a big city there are going to be multiple people who look similar, resulting in a tenuous case for the prosecution).
If you want a personal anecdote, my friends expensive dome camera on the front of his house was stolen by a random gangster who noticed it while passing by on a skateboard (too far away to make out more than the colors of his shirt and pants on the initial pass). The guy tied his shirt around his face somewhere off-camera, then came back 2 minutes later and stole the thing. Even with HD video of the guy stealing the $2500 camera, the police dragged their feet at sending a detective over to look at it. And it's not like they could put out an APB for "~180lb Hispanic male approximately 5'10" with brown eyes and dark hair", as that would describe slightly less than half the city.
Well... most criminals intent on stealing or vandalizing a car probably won't be armed. But they might learn to bring along a tarp to throw over the robot to blind it.
Most criminals intent on vandalizing a car will be content with vandalizing an expensive security robot instead. In fact, I'd bet the robot would be even funner to vandalize than a car. It has all the thrill of damaging something expensive, plus the added benefits of reacting to the damage in a potentially funny way, and the ego boost from having messed with the thing that was supposed to stop them. Additionally, the robot is 100% safe. There's always some risk that if you mess with a human enough, they'll eventually snap and do something about it, even if it means getting fired or sued.
Slashdot Mirror
For the one-way street example, sure. But what happens when someone incorrectly marks the bridge under construction as a passable road and several hundred commuters plunge off the end of it like lemmings?
Oh man, I remember when I found that site about 8 years ago and lost about a solid week reading everything I could find in it. I kind of wish I could discover it for the first time again. It sort of ruined the "space sim" genre of games for me (or maybe more accurately: gave me the material I needed to explain why I was always inexplicably disappointed with them). On the plus side, it made a great resource for writing a hard SF short story for some BS english class I had to take, introduced me to some great hard SF books, and got me reading the Freefall webcomic.
The other issue arises when developers decide to screw over the original backers. Release the bare minimum to get their kickstarter payments, then do a 180 on all their promises (because who cares about the original backers, they already got their money from those guys. Time to find a new audience).
The summary focuses on being able to see through pages, but how fast can it scan them? Assuming cost/complexity factors don't make it prohibitive, I could see something like this being used to rapidly digitize a printed book without having to pause to turn pages or slice the spine open to feed them individually through a scanner.
Interesting study, but it begs the question of what happened to bookstores? Most communities have seen a huge contraction in brick and mortar bookstores.
The most common explanation is that many people buy from Amazon rather than go to a bookstore.
The other explanation is that the study is total BS. Asking if someone has read a single physical book in the space of a year is a terrible question to gauge the question of physical books vs ebooks. I generally read somewhere between 20 and 30 books a year, and since the advent of ebooks at least 90% of those haven't been physical copies. Despite that, my answer to the survey would could towards physical books still being in high demand, nevermind that I'm only buying them at a 10th of the rate I was before.
Sixty-five percent of adults in the United States said they had read a printed book in the past year, the same percentage that said so in 2012
That's a terrible question. Considering that most people who bother to read books even when they're not being forced to generally read much much more than one book per year, it's not really giving a very accurate picture. I got my first e-reader in 2012, and have hundreds of ebooks in my library now (all of them read). Despite all of that, I can still say I've read at least one physical book per year. It's just that the percentage of my reading done on physical books has dropped from 100% to 1%.
What "nefarious protocol" are you referring to?
I have no idea, you were talking about protocols so I thought you had something in mind. Replace it with whatever other slightly off looking malicious link you'd like if it makes more sense that way.
And to riff off an old tech support joke, they're called foot pedals, not mice.
Unrelated to the discussion thread but completely related to that anecdote: I knew an electrical engineer with bad carpel tunnel who made a foot pedal for clicking the mouse buttons. He also stripped the guts from a gyro mouse and mounted them on a headset. I think the controls were basically left foot to click, right foot to tell the gyro mouse to start tracking, and then he'd hunt and peck type holding a stylus in each fist. Watching him operate his computer was hilarious. His head would be twitching and jerking all over the place to an accompaniment of seemingly random foot stomps and fits of what looked like overhanded stabbing of the keyboard with a pair of pencils.
Yeah you're exactly right, the half of the population who click on anything would totally not do that if only they could see the protocol. Because that's what was keeping everyone safe for so many years back in the halcyon days of innocence when everyone used IE6 and malware was non-existent.
Even if you're dumb enough to click anything and everything, your brain is pretty good at pattern matching. Even the worst offenders when it comes to irresponsible computer usage generally at least subconsciously notice when a URL says something like somenefariousprotocol://Bank0fAmerica.com instead of https://bankofamerica.com./ Speaking from some pretty extensive experience scamming people in EvE Online, I can tell you that even the slightest deviation from what's expected by the target (even if it's not something they're normally consciously aware of) is often enough to jog even the dumbest persons brain into suspicious mode (and if not that, at least a more observative mode) and ruin the entire thing.
I have found that the biggest problem some people have with Linux is they try to impose Windows on it
That's hardly the issue here, but go ahead and keep responding to things I didn't write (or even imply).
How on earth did you do the install? I haven't done an install in years that didn't require an internet connection to do it. You need to connect to the internet, in the first place, so it is remarkable that your connection and install would kill the driver.
Sumpin seriously odd here.
I don't even know if it's worth continuing this discussion at this point. Offline installs are still a thing, and there's usually (though distressingly less now for laptops) the option of installing with a physical cable plugged in as it's generally the wireless that's not recognized. A simple google search for "linux wireless adapter not recognized" will turn up all kinds of results, and you'll even notice that there are often a multitude of different ways of fixing it for the same adapter, making it a game of russian roulette as to which one will work and which one will leave your computer in some weird state that will bite you in the ass 3 months down the road.
Note that out of many dozens of installs, that's it. That is also less issues than my Windows installs.
Again, the context of that was just odd issues that tend to invite tech savvy people to try and fix them (and subsequently break things), not that the odd issue is somehow making it unusable. And if you're going to claim that an OS (I don't care which OS) runs flawlessly 99% of the time on all of your computers without a single little nuisance thing requiring your attention to fix, you're a liar.
And no, I've never had to reinstall Linux. Windows? Just about once a year.
My hdds tend to fail before I need a windows reinstall. So far every single linux install I've done to date has gotten mangled from my attempts to do things on it (even simple things, such as installing steam on debian) that the only help I can get from the support forums is to just reinstall.
I'm the luckiest guy on earth.
Either that or you have a bad memory. I haven't once installed ubuntu or debian on a laptop where at least 1 semi-important bit of hardware wasn't recognized, or was only partially supported. The most common offender was the network card(s) not showing up at all, followed by the touchpad/keyboard buttons not being fully recognized, and then occasionally the video drivers. More often than not the fix involved screwing with repos to install some non-free driver, at which point the system would seem to have more and more things broken every time I updated.
The worst problem I've had with Linux is a lubuntu install that doesn't care what I set for wakeup. After five minutes of inactivity, I have to log in again.
That's exactly the kind of minor issue I'm talking about. A non-tech savvy person wouldn't know the first place to start and just live with it. I like to at least attempt fixing those sorts of things, but generally the attempt ends up breaking more things than it fixes.
I'd argue back that I am by virtue of my savvy - of which I do not claim expert status at all - that I will use the best tool for the task I am doing. And Windows is not always - in fact for my line of work, not often the best tool for the job. And really, OSX very seldom has issues that requires a total reinstall. That's a Windows thing. The only time I have ever done that on a Mac was when a hard drive failed - sort of understandable in that case. People that have problems because of keyboard layout are seldom that tech savvy. Just experience talking, and that could be wrong.
If you'd actually bothered to read my post, you'd notice I never made claims about any of the things you talk about here. I even specifically talked about linux, no mention of OSX anywhere. And as far as complete reinstalls, unless you're familiar to the point that you don't need to google for solutions, it's extremely easy to bork linux to the point where it's easier to do that than to try and reverse each of the fixes you googled (and perhaps only got partway through before realizing it wouldn't work) for a 50-50 chance of the system never working quite right after you go through all the effort.
I would also argue that your minor nuisance issues ar enot even remotely a nuisance for some of us - just a difference.
I'm not talking about differences, I'm talking about actual problems such as my linux install not recognizing the brightness control keys on my laptop, or some bug with the wireless drivers that causes the card to glitch out and reconnect a few times a day. The sorts of problems that are annoying, but you can live with.
I'd argue that it's easier to get along with linux if you're less computer savvy (assuming there's someone to set it up for you). A non-computer savvy person is a lot more willing to live with minor nuisance issues and chalk them up to being caused by some computerey thing they don't care about. Someone who is tech savvy knows they don't have to live with minor nuisance issues, and is generally going to be a lot less forgiving when it comes to minor problems. When that person attempts to fix said problems themselves they usually end up breaking other things, and won't grudgingly decide to just live with the original problem until 3 wasted weekends and 2 total reinstalls later.
Did you see his video on the bluetooth masterlock though? 3 blows with a standard claw hammer blew it apart.
Assuming the tech is developed to the point of being relatively portable, it'd be easier to get away with spoofing an autopilot system than a human. Someone standing on the side of the road shining a laser pointer at your car is pretty easy to spot by both you and other bystanders. Someone standing on the side of the road wearing a backpack with a radar jamming device isn't quite as obvious. Pick a convenient corner with a big dropoff, stand there and watch a tesla or two go over the edge, then walk away. No one will know what happened until tesla analyzes the logs weeks later, at which point you're long gone and nobody even remembers you were there.
Yep. I strongly suspect we'll see flights of cheap drones accompanying a single human long before we see flights of drones operating under full autonomy. Assuming they can fly in a straight line and maintain relative positions they'd be perfect for assisting in communications, target detection/tracking (iirc having two radars spaced somewhat apart while still working together is useful for a lot of things), and even flying tight formation to screw with enemy detection and tracking. They could even act as somewhat expendable decoys for use against incoming missiles.
since they cannot sneak something onto your computer that you have to then pay for.
Oh honey...
And when the company decides the profit is greater than the cost of the lawsuit? Is the corporate attorney going to stand up and say "the case has merit and my company did the wrong thing, it's just that we made a bunch of money from it so we don't care"? I don't know about you, but I'd be willing to bet that they're *still* going to stand up there and say the case has no merit, despite have predicted the lawsuits well before the decision was made to proceed anyway.
Well obviously it'd decelerate after it started breaking up impact. The question is more about if any braking took place.
And? The secretary of state is supposed to understand how to properly handle classified information, but it's not like anything meaningful happened when they didn't. The rules clearly don't apply to these people, so why should this be any different?
The question is, is there anything in there that's incriminating? If not, it doesn't really matter.
This would imply that it matters even if it is incriminating, something that a brief examination of the history of the Clintons calls into question.
Most drivers are pretty aware of their periphery, I've had people try to merge into me before and reacted appropriately. The only reason the car had to react to save him is because he was letting the autopilot drive and wasn't really paying attention. Exactly the thing that got him killed.
This. A lot of the autonomous car proponents (and programmers in general for that matter, a lot of my co-workers are pretty scary drivers) seem to be under the impression that being "in the right" means you're somehow not going to have an accident and/or you'll magically be spared in the event of having one just because you had right of way and the other guy was an idiot. It never seems to occur to them that even accidents that would be 100% the other guys fault can be avoided if *they* actually pay attention not just for themselves, but for the other drivers on the road who may be distracted.
I drive a small car that people often don't see, and as such I'm constantly watching what other drivers are doing and driving as if they're actively trying to kill me. Taking this example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?... . I remember specifically thinking the green car might try to merge into me and very intentionally made sure I still had an escape to the left as I was making the lane change. Had I not reacted and been hit, it would have 100% been the other guys fault and I'd have had the camera footage to prove it. However, my car would have been devalued (if not totaled), in the shop for weeks, and I could have been injured. I'd rather avoid an accident than get into one, even if it would have been the other guys fault. In my example, I wonder if an autonomous car would have done the same. It would definitely be easier for Tesla to just let it happen so they could point and say "look at all of these terrible drivers hitting our cars" than to troll through years worth of autopilot footage looking for examples of accidents that were prevented due to their cars planning out moves way in advance under the assumption that other drivers are morons.
Except with the direction consumer goods have been going lately and the decline of actual ownership (look at cell phones), there's a very clear precedent for this sort of thing happening. Additionally, what happens when tesla pulls a microsoft and refuses updates to your vehicle in order to forcibly make you buy the next model? Your unupdated vehicle would now be a risk to other cars on the road, and your state could then compel you to retire the car via refusing to renew the registration.
You're getting way too technical. The easiest way to defeat the cameras is to cover your face up with whatever you have on hand. Or don't even bother covering it up. It's not like they're going to distribute HD pictures door to door asking if anyone's seen the guy who vandalized the parking surveillance robot (and faces aren't fingerprints, I guarantee you that in a big city there are going to be multiple people who look similar, resulting in a tenuous case for the prosecution).
If you want a personal anecdote, my friends expensive dome camera on the front of his house was stolen by a random gangster who noticed it while passing by on a skateboard (too far away to make out more than the colors of his shirt and pants on the initial pass). The guy tied his shirt around his face somewhere off-camera, then came back 2 minutes later and stole the thing. Even with HD video of the guy stealing the $2500 camera, the police dragged their feet at sending a detective over to look at it. And it's not like they could put out an APB for "~180lb Hispanic male approximately 5'10" with brown eyes and dark hair", as that would describe slightly less than half the city.
Well ... most criminals intent on stealing or vandalizing a car probably won't be armed. But they might learn to bring along a tarp to throw over the robot to blind it.
Most criminals intent on vandalizing a car will be content with vandalizing an expensive security robot instead. In fact, I'd bet the robot would be even funner to vandalize than a car. It has all the thrill of damaging something expensive, plus the added benefits of reacting to the damage in a potentially funny way, and the ego boost from having messed with the thing that was supposed to stop them. Additionally, the robot is 100% safe. There's always some risk that if you mess with a human enough, they'll eventually snap and do something about it, even if it means getting fired or sued.