The US federal gov't can easily step in, ask remailers to either reveal the sender, log the connections or deny.
You obviously don't know anything about remailers. I operated one for a few years, so allow me to say what should've been blatantly obvious:
The operator can not identify the sender. Mixmaster is a type II remailer. Those are specifically designed to make such attacks unfeasable, and continue to operate and provide anonymity even in the event that one or several remailers in the chain have been subverted.
Do you have any evidence for "desensitisation" actually happening in this area, or is that a soundbite some lobbyist or activist sold you cheaply?
We are all quick with stories about what could happen. Where most of us humans suck is at actually connecting the dots and seeing what happens, instead of skipping that step and imagining something in the cloud of dots.
Why not allow massive organizations to have their own namespace?
Because we have no definition of "massive" everyone agrees upon, so in the implementation that part will just be dropped and everyone who wants (and can pay the $$$) will get their own TLD.
Basically, we've just ended the hierarchical structure of the DNS. From now on, we have a flat namespace at the top-level. Because, quite frankly, what reason except cost do I have to not shorten the name of my small online game's website from battlemaster.org to just battlemaster?
No, it's the logical conclusion of the Internet becoming commercial. When things are run for-profit than logic takes second place behind profit. Basically, if there's a buck to make, someone will do it, whatever "it" is. And in this case "it" is mutilating the DNS.
And you think that's not an argument that they tried - and apparently failed - in the german court? You don't give the expensive lawyers MS retains much credit, do you?
Typical MS arrogance. I know german judges, having both worked with them and been to court (usually as the plaintiff) in quite a few business-related cases. The judge in the german case is going to be pissed. MS is either stupid like shit in the "don't piss of the judge" department, or they already see the case in the german court as lost.
That's a question? Why of course there is a bias. Two equally two answer to "why":
a) because nobody likes a bully, especially after he starts stumbling
b) that's what 20+ years of fucking everyone you can get your hands on over does to your reputation
On the contrary, I would say that despite their fairly good track record in recent years, MS deserves everything they're getting and the bill is far away from being paid.
Ask for money. If marketing isn't doing its job and asks you to do it, you deserve a share of their paycheck.
Basically, whenever the company asks you to do something they aren't paying you for, they ought to be paying for the extra. Be it time or work outside your assigned area.
Treat your company the way it treats its customers. Sometimes a good customer gets something complimentary - as part of keeping a good relationship or whatever. But never just out of the goodness of the companies heart (it doesn't have one). It's always a calculation.
A chance to re-invent e-mail? Where do I sign up? Setting up the whole thing from scratch, with binary data, encryption, authentication, spam protection and a dozen other things that SMTP doesn't include, and all of that with a userbase of potentially a few million users instead of some university project that doesn't tell you a thing about real life? Heck, what a fantastic opportunity. A great playing field to get this working properly and when most of the big issues are solved, roll it out to the rest of the world.
And that's symptomatic: Anything not EU or in the shadow of EU isn't really Europe, according to that mindset.
I'm sorry, but I'm not falling for that straw man. I was specifically talking about the EU, so criticising me for focussing on the EU when that's explicitly what I was doing is an odd argument.
But yes, having an EU to identify with instead of a nation is just one step. A few hundred years ago, identifying with a nation instead of your local barony or duchy was just as revolutionary. Maybe in another hundred years or so we'll have reached continents. Will we ever get a "world-identity"? Maybe only if we have other worlds to consider "them", because yes, a group defines itself as much by whom it excludes as by whom it includes.
Good point on Yugoslavia there. However, even though I grant the point, I was talking about the european union and Yugoslavia wasn't part of it.
There is still a border between the former east and western Europe. 50 years of forced seperation do that to people. It's still a massive difference. Travel to any french. british, spanish, italien or german city and you won't notice much difference aside from the language. But eastern Europe still is quite different.
I've not personally known any other country wide culture that values its own members so highly.
I do. My grandfather died fighting it. It was called the "Third Reich".
Not a hundred years ago, patriotism to a degree that would alarm us today was pretty much the norm. Germany overdid it, but the rest of the western world wasn't all that much behind. Look at UK or US propaganda films from the early war years.
But, over here in Europe, everyone got the idea of the nation pretty much bombed out of them. Some by the Axis, some by the Allies, a few especially lucky ones first by the one and then by the other. Afterwards, we sat down and said "ok, that was fucked up. Let's not do that again, ok?" - and the idea of the European Union was born. While we don't have a european identity, yet, and identify as german, french, british, etc. that spirit of Europe is there. And while the german press, for example, calls the greek dirty, lazy bastards, almost nobody in Europe would so much as contemplate the idea of bombing another European country.
But this strong concept of national identity has remained in the US. We Europeans look with bemusement at quirks such as playing the national anthem before national(!) football games. International games, ok we did that. But national games? That simply makes no sense to us. Everyone is from the same country, so why the heck play the national anthem?
This is where we disagree. I consider semantics to be very important, not a "just" matter. Language shapes our thoughts and more importantly, politics. Language is important, and calling things by their proper names is very, very important. If I were king of the world, I'd make 90% of advertisement illegal by one simple requirement: That commercial speech (a badly needed category, btw.) must be truthful in that every statement made can either be shown to be true or is not made in the form of a statement of truth.
Obviously being short one cent is a small failure.
I wouldn't even call it failure. I would call it success. Because your actual goal was most likely not the exact value of $6.00 - but to raise your earnings and the figure was your helper. Like the tower on land in my boat/lake example, actually reaching it is not as important as the direction.
Basically, this is my criticism: By focus on the goal, you betray the success. If your goal is to earn $6 and you earn $5.99, then you have accomplished 99.8333% of your goal. If your goal was to earn $1 more than yesterday, you have accomplished 99.0% of your goal. In both cases, you have been more successful than failed.
But this is where it's just language. By taking different ways of putting things, you move things around. My point is that even this binary goal isn't as clear as it pretends to be. So why cling to it? If you took a more analog approach, your actual, human goal is something like "I'd like to make more money, say about $6". By that measure, you were successful because in real life, our goals are often just like that. A company may believe that it needs to make a profit of $10 mio. to satisfy its shareholders - but I doubt the shareholders will rip the CEO a new one if he misses that goal by a couple $.
There's more to this. Our world is increasingly random. Precise goals create the false impression that things were precise when they aren't. The difference between, say, making $590 and $610 with your shop today is more likely to be caused by the weather, local events, traffic or a combination of all those and four dozen other random factors than by your skill, advertisement or opening hours.
Being close doesn't mean you succeeded, it means you were close to succeeding, but still failed.
This is true in one and only one condition: That the race is a winner-takes-all matter. In the US presidential election, it is true. In any kind of system where you need to reach a limit in order to get anything (many sales commissions work that way) it is true. In some life-or-death matters it is true.
But in almost every real-world circumstances, by measure of the real-world effect, it isn't. The actual real-world effect between bringing home $5.99 and bringing home $6.00 simply doesn't justify drawing a line inbetween and calling the one side one term and the other side a different one.
I know I'm not making myself very clear, which is why I'm writing so long-winded. I'm still trying to wrap my own head around a non-Aristotelian world-view, which is pretty difficult after 2000 years of indoctrination. But the difference isn't just in language. Or rather: The difference isn't without consequences. People get fired over missing goals. Stocks get sold, companies broken up because someone has a number to reach on some arbitrary key figure.
You set up goals. If you've accomplished your goals, you succeeded. If you did not accomplish them you failed.
You earn $5 today. You set your goal at $6 tomorrow. You manage to earn $5.99 - failure?
Goals are useful, but we are completely overdoing them by fixating on the goal instead of the purpose of the goal. Anecdote: When navigating on a lake, the easiest method is to pick a target on land and steer towards it. Say a high tower or a mountain. But you always know that the target isn't something you are actually trying to reach. It is just a helper.
I'm tired of the PC world, especially when teaching children, where we tell everyone that nobody fails
I'm with you all the way on that. People need to be told clearly that they're fat, lazy assholes in order to get up and change it. People need to be told when they've fucked something up so they learn. People need to be told when they've failed to accomplish something. And clarity is more important than not hurting someones feelings. Heck, in some cases hurt feelings are the entire point. I'd really like us to go back to teasing fat kids, instead of "loving them the way they are". Sorry, I'd love them a lot more if they weren't so fucking overweight.
So this is not about redefining failure as success. My point is that "success" and "failure" are from Aristotelian logic and unsuited for almost all cases of real life. We need analog criteria, not digital ones. Or, in very simple terms: Instead of paying people for reaching arbitrary sales goal A, pay them in relation to the increase in sales they make possible.
That is exactly what I'm talking about. The real world does not conform to the assumption that everything either is "A" or "not A". Quite often, we find that we need to define a new category just to fit something in.
You earn $5 today. You set yourself a goal of earning $6 tomorrow. You manage to earn $5.99 - failure?
It's pretty common here in Germany for company to pay out cash rewards to employees who suggest an improvement.
A couple decades of experience show that most stuff under such a system is small day-to-day operation stuff. Real innovations simply don't work well as a written-up proposal. You need a budget up front (even if it's small, or just a time budget), you need some experimentation and iterative refinement.
But those small improvements also add up and most companies are very happy to have such a system in place. It saves them having dedicated people running around the shop looking for things to improve upon as the employees do that, and usually better.
While it's a cute idea, they're still trapped in a binary, aristotelian model of the world that isn't adequate at all.
Very few things in the real world really are clearly distinguishable as "success" or "failure". So we introduce arbitrary criteria, but these fail us as often as they are useful. A lot of innovations came out of "failures".
The solution isn't to reward failure - it is to do away with the concept. So I failed that arbitrary milestone or project goal. Unless the project was a customer request, the real question should be what was actually accomplished.
Because it cuts the other way around, too. One of the unsolved issues of capitalism is the focus on short-term goals and "success" measured in quarterly numbers. It is a massive incentive for deciders to take large, but hidden, risks. Quite a few companies have gone broke only months after paying their executives huge bonuses for their "success".
Because too few people ask the question what it really means for the company to have raised its market share to arbitrary value X and reduced its personal cost to arbitrary value Y while maintaining some arbitrary ratio or key figure at arbitrary value Z.
Because a proper look at failure also requires a proper perspective on success, I doubt we will see it happen, because too much money is in the illusion of "success".
if you're running your own anti-spam setup using a combination of firewalls, 'nix, open-source MTA, DNSBLs, etc. then you're in a decent position to adapt quickly when the need arises.
The problem is that it takes time.
I run my own mailserver, for myself and a small number of people close to me. For the past two years or so, the spam that passes all my filters (well-configured MTA with aggressive rejects for SMTP errors, greylisting, spam-assassin) has increased from almost none to now 10-20 per day. And simply keeping things updated doesn't do much anymore.
And I really have better things to do with my time than fighting spam.:-(
Those of us who actually know what's going on have largely left.
That's not true (hey, first time my UID is on-topic). But we spend a lot less time here./. is now just one of many sites I check every now and then. Mostly because:
I'm now starting to see stories, on a regular basis, either not show up on slashdot, or show up, up to a week late. Slashdot is hardly relevant anymore.
This is 100% true. There used to be a time where/. was the go-to place for interesting stuff that I'd never have found any other way. These days, on most good stories,/. is late to the party.
in 1992, we had BBSes, which were essentially what slashdot, facebok, etc. are, just for the masses...
Not by a mile. I operated a BBS then, I have a couple servers on the Internet now. While there are similarities, the differences are dramatic. More importantly, back in 1992 I would not have guessed even remotely at what 2012 would look like.
Remember that the "web" was viewed with suspicion early on. Gopher, FTP and E-Mail were what the Internet was intended for.
but how has that influenced the likelihood of an economic collapse?
dot-com bubble? Estimates of the future of the business world varied wildly before-during-after that one, for example.
Even though they weren't an economic power in 1992, I'm sure China had plenty of nuclear weapons.
As a nuclear power, they had about the same presence internationally as India does today. Yeah, they have nukes, but others (in 1992, Russia) are way more important and worrysome.
As for agriculture, we've increased quantity, but decreased quality. that's actually a step backwards:\
Depends on your position. We who can enjoy the quality certainly dislike the trend. Those who have something to eat thanks to the quantity have a different perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
The US federal gov't can easily step in, ask remailers to either reveal the sender, log the connections or deny.
You obviously don't know anything about remailers. I operated one for a few years, so allow me to say what should've been blatantly obvious:
The operator can not identify the sender. Mixmaster is a type II remailer. Those are specifically designed to make such attacks unfeasable, and continue to operate and provide anonymity even in the event that one or several remailers in the chain have been subverted.
Do you have any evidence for "desensitisation" actually happening in this area, or is that a soundbite some lobbyist or activist sold you cheaply?
We are all quick with stories about what could happen. Where most of us humans suck is at actually connecting the dots and seeing what happens, instead of skipping that step and imagining something in the cloud of dots.
Why not allow massive organizations to have their own namespace?
Because we have no definition of "massive" everyone agrees upon, so in the implementation that part will just be dropped and everyone who wants (and can pay the $$$) will get their own TLD.
Basically, we've just ended the hierarchical structure of the DNS. From now on, we have a flat namespace at the top-level. Because, quite frankly, what reason except cost do I have to not shorten the name of my small online game's website from battlemaster.org to just battlemaster?
No, it's the logical conclusion of the Internet becoming commercial. When things are run for-profit than logic takes second place behind profit. Basically, if there's a buck to make, someone will do it, whatever "it" is. And in this case "it" is mutilating the DNS.
And you think that's not an argument that they tried - and apparently failed - in the german court? You don't give the expensive lawyers MS retains much credit, do you?
They could've at least given them something closer to Tokio capsule hotels. And I sincerely hope they have showers and such on-site.
Aside from that - sure, why not? You can do stuff like that for a short time in a once-in-a-lifetime situation.
Typical MS arrogance. I know german judges, having both worked with them and been to court (usually as the plaintiff) in quite a few business-related cases. The judge in the german case is going to be pissed. MS is either stupid like shit in the "don't piss of the judge" department, or they already see the case in the german court as lost.
That's a question? Why of course there is a bias. Two equally two answer to "why":
a) because nobody likes a bully, especially after he starts stumbling
b) that's what 20+ years of fucking everyone you can get your hands on over does to your reputation
On the contrary, I would say that despite their fairly good track record in recent years, MS deserves everything they're getting and the bill is far away from being paid.
Ask for money. If marketing isn't doing its job and asks you to do it, you deserve a share of their paycheck.
Basically, whenever the company asks you to do something they aren't paying you for, they ought to be paying for the extra. Be it time or work outside your assigned area.
Treat your company the way it treats its customers. Sometimes a good customer gets something complimentary - as part of keeping a good relationship or whatever. But never just out of the goodness of the companies heart (it doesn't have one). It's always a calculation.
A chance to re-invent e-mail? Where do I sign up?
Setting up the whole thing from scratch, with binary data, encryption, authentication, spam protection and a dozen other things that SMTP doesn't include, and all of that with a userbase of potentially a few million users instead of some university project that doesn't tell you a thing about real life?
Heck, what a fantastic opportunity. A great playing field to get this working properly and when most of the big issues are solved, roll it out to the rest of the world.
Seriously. Are they hiring?
And that's symptomatic: Anything not EU or in the shadow of EU isn't really Europe, according to that mindset.
I'm sorry, but I'm not falling for that straw man. I was specifically talking about the EU, so criticising me for focussing on the EU when that's explicitly what I was doing is an odd argument.
But yes, having an EU to identify with instead of a nation is just one step. A few hundred years ago, identifying with a nation instead of your local barony or duchy was just as revolutionary. Maybe in another hundred years or so we'll have reached continents. Will we ever get a "world-identity"? Maybe only if we have other worlds to consider "them", because yes, a group defines itself as much by whom it excludes as by whom it includes.
True that, though I was talking about the European Union and Yugoslavia wasn't a part of that.
Good point on Yugoslavia there. However, even though I grant the point, I was talking about the european union and Yugoslavia wasn't part of it.
There is still a border between the former east and western Europe. 50 years of forced seperation do that to people. It's still a massive difference. Travel to any french. british, spanish, italien or german city and you won't notice much difference aside from the language. But eastern Europe still is quite different.
I've not personally known any other country wide culture that values its own members so highly.
I do. My grandfather died fighting it. It was called the "Third Reich".
Not a hundred years ago, patriotism to a degree that would alarm us today was pretty much the norm. Germany overdid it, but the rest of the western world wasn't all that much behind. Look at UK or US propaganda films from the early war years.
But, over here in Europe, everyone got the idea of the nation pretty much bombed out of them. Some by the Axis, some by the Allies, a few especially lucky ones first by the one and then by the other. Afterwards, we sat down and said "ok, that was fucked up. Let's not do that again, ok?" - and the idea of the European Union was born.
While we don't have a european identity, yet, and identify as german, french, british, etc. that spirit of Europe is there. And while the german press, for example, calls the greek dirty, lazy bastards, almost nobody in Europe would so much as contemplate the idea of bombing another European country.
But this strong concept of national identity has remained in the US. We Europeans look with bemusement at quirks such as playing the national anthem before national(!) football games. International games, ok we did that. But national games? That simply makes no sense to us. Everyone is from the same country, so why the heck play the national anthem?
You're 50+ years behind the times.
We Germans would put our towels down to mark our spot and then go for breakfast.
Are we back at the "hippie communist students" stage again, yes? Someone has taken their regression therapy too far.
This is just semantics,
This is where we disagree. I consider semantics to be very important, not a "just" matter. Language shapes our thoughts and more importantly, politics. Language is important, and calling things by their proper names is very, very important. If I were king of the world, I'd make 90% of advertisement illegal by one simple requirement: That commercial speech (a badly needed category, btw.) must be truthful in that every statement made can either be shown to be true or is not made in the form of a statement of truth.
Obviously being short one cent is a small failure.
I wouldn't even call it failure. I would call it success. Because your actual goal was most likely not the exact value of $6.00 - but to raise your earnings and the figure was your helper. Like the tower on land in my boat/lake example, actually reaching it is not as important as the direction.
Basically, this is my criticism: By focus on the goal, you betray the success. If your goal is to earn $6 and you earn $5.99, then you have accomplished 99.8333% of your goal. If your goal was to earn $1 more than yesterday, you have accomplished 99.0% of your goal. In both cases, you have been more successful than failed.
But this is where it's just language. By taking different ways of putting things, you move things around. My point is that even this binary goal isn't as clear as it pretends to be. So why cling to it? If you took a more analog approach, your actual, human goal is something like "I'd like to make more money, say about $6". By that measure, you were successful because in real life, our goals are often just like that. A company may believe that it needs to make a profit of $10 mio. to satisfy its shareholders - but I doubt the shareholders will rip the CEO a new one if he misses that goal by a couple $.
There's more to this. Our world is increasingly random. Precise goals create the false impression that things were precise when they aren't. The difference between, say, making $590 and $610 with your shop today is more likely to be caused by the weather, local events, traffic or a combination of all those and four dozen other random factors than by your skill, advertisement or opening hours.
Being close doesn't mean you succeeded, it means you were close to succeeding, but still failed.
This is true in one and only one condition: That the race is a winner-takes-all matter. In the US presidential election, it is true. In any kind of system where you need to reach a limit in order to get anything (many sales commissions work that way) it is true. In some life-or-death matters it is true.
But in almost every real-world circumstances, by measure of the real-world effect, it isn't. The actual real-world effect between bringing home $5.99 and bringing home $6.00 simply doesn't justify drawing a line inbetween and calling the one side one term and the other side a different one.
I know I'm not making myself very clear, which is why I'm writing so long-winded. I'm still trying to wrap my own head around a non-Aristotelian world-view, which is pretty difficult after 2000 years of indoctrination. But the difference isn't just in language. Or rather: The difference isn't without consequences. People get fired over missing goals. Stocks get sold, companies broken up because someone has a number to reach on some arbitrary key figure.
You set up goals. If you've accomplished your goals, you succeeded. If you did not accomplish them you failed.
You earn $5 today. You set your goal at $6 tomorrow. You manage to earn $5.99 - failure?
Goals are useful, but we are completely overdoing them by fixating on the goal instead of the purpose of the goal. Anecdote: When navigating on a lake, the easiest method is to pick a target on land and steer towards it. Say a high tower or a mountain. But you always know that the target isn't something you are actually trying to reach. It is just a helper.
I'm tired of the PC world, especially when teaching children, where we tell everyone that nobody fails
I'm with you all the way on that. People need to be told clearly that they're fat, lazy assholes in order to get up and change it. People need to be told when they've fucked something up so they learn. People need to be told when they've failed to accomplish something. And clarity is more important than not hurting someones feelings. Heck, in some cases hurt feelings are the entire point. I'd really like us to go back to teasing fat kids, instead of "loving them the way they are". Sorry, I'd love them a lot more if they weren't so fucking overweight.
So this is not about redefining failure as success. My point is that "success" and "failure" are from Aristotelian logic and unsuited for almost all cases of real life. We need analog criteria, not digital ones. Or, in very simple terms: Instead of paying people for reaching arbitrary sales goal A, pay them in relation to the increase in sales they make possible.
That is exactly what I'm talking about. The real world does not conform to the assumption that everything either is "A" or "not A". Quite often, we find that we need to define a new category just to fit something in.
You earn $5 today. You set yourself a goal of earning $6 tomorrow. You manage to earn $5.99 - failure?
It's pretty common here in Germany for company to pay out cash rewards to employees who suggest an improvement.
A couple decades of experience show that most stuff under such a system is small day-to-day operation stuff. Real innovations simply don't work well as a written-up proposal. You need a budget up front (even if it's small, or just a time budget), you need some experimentation and iterative refinement.
But those small improvements also add up and most companies are very happy to have such a system in place. It saves them having dedicated people running around the shop looking for things to improve upon as the employees do that, and usually better.
While it's a cute idea, they're still trapped in a binary, aristotelian model of the world that isn't adequate at all.
Very few things in the real world really are clearly distinguishable as "success" or "failure". So we introduce arbitrary criteria, but these fail us as often as they are useful. A lot of innovations came out of "failures".
The solution isn't to reward failure - it is to do away with the concept. So I failed that arbitrary milestone or project goal. Unless the project was a customer request, the real question should be what was actually accomplished.
Because it cuts the other way around, too. One of the unsolved issues of capitalism is the focus on short-term goals and "success" measured in quarterly numbers. It is a massive incentive for deciders to take large, but hidden, risks. Quite a few companies have gone broke only months after paying their executives huge bonuses for their "success".
Because too few people ask the question what it really means for the company to have raised its market share to arbitrary value X and reduced its personal cost to arbitrary value Y while maintaining some arbitrary ratio or key figure at arbitrary value Z.
Because a proper look at failure also requires a proper perspective on success, I doubt we will see it happen, because too much money is in the illusion of "success".
If no one receives your spam because their filters are effective, there will be no profitability left.
You'd think that, but real life begs to differ.
What really happened is that no filter is ever 100%. So we can improve our filters from 90% to 99% or maybe to 99.99%.
But the spammer won't stop spamming. What he will do is increase his output. Instead of 10,000 mails he will send 100,000 mails, and then 10 mio.
if you're running your own anti-spam setup using a combination of firewalls, 'nix, open-source MTA, DNSBLs, etc. then you're in a decent position to adapt quickly when the need arises.
The problem is that it takes time.
I run my own mailserver, for myself and a small number of people close to me. For the past two years or so, the spam that passes all my filters (well-configured MTA with aggressive rejects for SMTP errors, greylisting, spam-assassin) has increased from almost none to now 10-20 per day. And simply keeping things updated doesn't do much anymore.
And I really have better things to do with my time than fighting spam. :-(
Those of us who actually know what's going on have largely left.
That's not true (hey, first time my UID is on-topic). But we spend a lot less time here. /. is now just one of many sites I check every now and then. Mostly because:
I'm now starting to see stories, on a regular basis, either not show up on slashdot, or show up, up to a week late. Slashdot is hardly relevant anymore.
This is 100% true. There used to be a time where /. was the go-to place for interesting stuff that I'd never have found any other way. These days, on most good stories, /. is late to the party.
in 1992, we had BBSes, which were essentially what slashdot, facebok, etc. are, just for the masses...
Not by a mile. I operated a BBS then, I have a couple servers on the Internet now. While there are similarities, the differences are dramatic. More importantly, back in 1992 I would not have guessed even remotely at what 2012 would look like.
Remember that the "web" was viewed with suspicion early on. Gopher, FTP and E-Mail were what the Internet was intended for.
but how has that influenced the likelihood of an economic collapse?
dot-com bubble? Estimates of the future of the business world varied wildly before-during-after that one, for example.
Even though they weren't an economic power in 1992, I'm sure China had plenty of nuclear weapons.
As a nuclear power, they had about the same presence internationally as India does today. Yeah, they have nukes, but others (in 1992, Russia) are way more important and worrysome.
As for agriculture, we've increased quantity, but decreased quality. that's actually a step backwards :\
Depends on your position. We who can enjoy the quality certainly dislike the trend. Those who have something to eat thanks to the quantity have a different perspective.