The majority, according to TFA, though they CDA invalidated the orders from the lower courts or something.
Uh, no. It removes liability. In fact, I seem to recall that under S230, if you refuse to obey court orders and remove content like defamatory posts shit gets real, real fast with the CDA no longer covering you at all.
And this is how the mouth-breathing, window-licking activists who wanted that Backpage-themed bill to gut the CDA got people incensed. The CDA doesn't protect you as a site owner from shit you allow that you know is illegal or civilly actionable. It protects you from liability up until someone comes forward and tells you "we're going to court, deal with this."
If that weren't the case, Gawker would still be here today because they'd have thrown the writers of the Hogan story under the bus and told him the gas bill was on them the moment he threatened to sue.
YouTube users, GMail users, etc. have all complained about similar issues with blackbox, zero accountability. On click, boom, you're done.
IANAL, but this is my theory...
We know that Google is controlled by some highly political people. People who want to be able to disconnect you, deplatform you, etc. at the drop of a dime. The more they make their services a customer service blackbox, the easier it is to get away with acting in bad faith.
By bad faith I mean specifically in contractual bad faith. All of the XKCD-citing hipsters miss a very important nuance of the law regarding "deplatforming assholes:" contracts are judged by the "good faith" conduct of both parties and evaluated by reasonable behavior standards.
They do things like tie your account to all of the services, including purchases, and after a few vague "bad behavior incidents" nuke it. Often taking real assets with them because of how those accounts are tied. I don't think, for instance, Microsoft would fair well if they cost someone $2k of XBox Live marketplace purchases because they cussed out a few butthurt players a few times (Microsoft claims it has the authority to do this). Google is the same way on a larger scale.
The more people that are involved, the more people who can be hauled into court, forced to testify, etc. You can demand they answer why they thought a reasonable person would act that way. You can point to flesh and blood people who are the focal point for a real user suffering real economic harm due to one or a few people's biases.
And then win damages.
IMO that is why you see these companies aggressively moving in this direction. It's about not facing as much accountability for acting like dicks.
I'm not going to make this a gun issue because it's about self-defense in general. In a homogeneous, low-crime, high-trust society like Japan they could probably get away with just reexamining basic laws on mace and things like that. What really matters is something that doesn't get through the smug, protected, middle class set until it's thrown in their face:
If someone wants to kill you, ain't a lot the government can do to stop it with preemptive legislation. If your coworker is willing to kill you, they can just bring a steak knife from home, follow you into the break room or bathroom and attack you. They don't need guns. They just need to be more concerned about killing you than getting away with it with their freedom intact.
If companies were to regularly take 10-20% of their profits and divide them up into bonuses for employees who work overtime, I bet a lot of these people would be much happier. Where I work, it is just a given that even if you brought in a few million dollars of new work for the company, if you're not "management," you typically don't see a bonus. Then they wonder why no one below management tends to give a damn about finding new business unless they're guaranteed a salaried slot on it (which is rare, so motivation is low).
In 2015, the same CEO smugly announced a pledge of $300M to promote workplace diversity. You don't spend that kind of shareholder money on something so divorced from the bottom line unless you believe you're invincible. As the marketplace is showing Intel they aren't, and their competition--particularly the ones from Asia--never let things like "social justice" get in the way of winning.
Apple is going to have the same problem too. Tim Cook can talk all day about social issues, particularly gay ones, but apparently can't keep his eyes on the prize as CEO by balancing the entire Mac ecosystem with the iOS one. They haven't produced a genuine professional laptop in probably 2 years now, and now they're cementing their relationship with the "my laptop matches my bag" set by choosing ARM over more powerful CPUs and a 32-64GB of RAM spec for a $2500+ laptop.
Bottom line: "get woke, go broke." All your virtue-signaling a $1.50 won't buy you a latte at Starbucks and the fog of war doesn't care if your soldiers are perfectly sensitive to "women's rights" if they aren't as well-trained and armed as the other army.
You don't want armed teachers who can pass a CCW process...
We can't afford to station multiple police officers strategically at every school... (most depts would see an extreme increase in manpower costs)
So what is your solution? The status quo, which is draw a magic line around the school, declare "this be a circle of protection, no demons, ghouls or criminals shall cross its magical boundaries" and hope for the best?
The one thing Twitter has not done is reorganized itself and made a public move to fair and equitable enforcement of its policies. It takes a very serious violation of Twitter's rules to get anyone on the left banned from Twitter. You can unequivocally call for someone to be raped and murdered and stand a good chance of keeping your account if Twitter's "community standards enforcers" and "Trust and Safety Council" consider you an ally. Heck, a reporter from CNN got caught putting crosshairs on the President or something like that and Twitter did not lift a finger to punish him or CNN.
(Note that this is why people on the right have started giving zero fucks when seemingly civil liberals whine about "right wing violence." I have liberal friends on Facebooks that, lacking any irony, were whining about right wing violence not long after a Bernie Bro tried to gun down dozens of republican congressmen and nearly killed Scalise. These are the same class off people who call mask-clad rioters and people who mob individuals at their homes and restaurants "protesters")
YouTube is a $2B corporate welfare recipient that considers "fighting white supremacy" one of its most important engineering goals. They're not operating in the real world like most of us where the average person is more likely to be offended that their machine learning specialists are more concerned about Richard Spencer than answering "why are demonic horror movies like Hereditary showing up on channels primarily targeted at small kids."
Who wants to bet their next paycheck that Google's recruiters have never darkened the door at a career fair at a HBC? Where do they think they're likely to find a huge group of black Computer Science majors who aren't African or Caribbean immigrants outside of that?
Google's not stupid. They know where they could aggressively recruit young black people trying to get engineering degrees, but HBCs are too prole for a company that typically only recruits "from the best." And Google doesn't want proles because they might bring truly shocking perspectives like telling Mr. I Identify as a Dragon that he's a total whack job who needs to stop mixing crystal meth and D&D instead of nodding along. (Working and middle class black people tend to be refreshingly willing to call you on your bullshit compared to the upper class yuppies that dominate places like SV)
"Put the criminal content on a small disk and no one will ever find it if I hide it."
Also, it's a small disk and easy to lose and have some random person in your social circle find by accident.
My money is on this being a very good investment for the police in the long run because most people are idiots and they'll never figure out the weakness in the quoted argument.
Announce that within 90 days, a new law will go into effect that does the following:
1. Releases drivers from any civil liability if they take reasonable steps to not hit a pedestrian who violates traffic laws as a result of being on a mobile device. 2. Makes distracted pedestrians liable for vehicle damage and any emotional trauma that is caused to a driver who hits them in compliance with point #1. 3. Allows for the felony prosecution of any distracted pedestrian who causes harm to drivers because they swerve to avoid them and collide with something.
Spring Boot and Grails are definitive proof that 90% of the complaints about learning curve were always a problem of developer culture and not the platform. It is probably easier to do a Spring Boot quickstart now than a Rails or Django one because the basic setup that just works is two files (pom.xml and a Java or Groovy source file).
Do we really want to be under oligopoly rule forever?
Their finances were out of control. By Ars Technica's reasonable estimates, they had blown through the majority of the funds they'd already raised, and a lot of it had to do with them blowing insane amounts of money on employee compensation. Plus, they weren't doing nearly enough to sell, sell, sell their enterprise packages to make up for the fact that their whole public site is damn near a loss leader for that line of business.
GitHub probably could have been profitable at least one or two years ago if they'd controlled their costs and gone all-in on selling the enterprise product. I remember 4 years ago their pricing was something like $5k/year/20 years or something like that. It was like it was designed to be unattractive to small teams with limited overhead (we could have afforded a one time $5k license, but the annual renewal was a deal-breaker on the perceived value).
GitHub aligns really well with Microsoft's position as a development tool company. Unless you want Embarcadero or Oracle to buy them, the best big dev tool company to buy them was Microsoft on that front.
Microsoft is also perfectly capable of turning the public site into a loss leader that gets companies to buy the enterprise version. They have the money to easily absorb GitHub's losses as they rebuild the enterprise strategy and open GitHub to Microsoft's full sales channel and task Microsoft corporate sales people with selling it.
And finally, Microsoft is like Apple here in that they have zero motivation right now to screw it up with ads and monetizing user data because they're not an advertising company and they have PLENTY of resources to turn the enterprise side of GitHub from a big loss into a multi-billion dollar business.
There are anywhere from a few million to tens of millions depending on the accounting who just gave up on finding a new job and are not counted anymore.
Labor pool stats are just relative to what we call a proper labor distribution anyway. If 10m millennial women suddenly dropped out of the workforce over a decade to be stay at home wives**, they'd probably call them unemployed. When men who did jobs that were outsourced give up, they call them participants in a ghost economy we won't^H^H^H^H^Hcan't measure Because Reasons.
(**bwahaha you don't think corporate America welcomed a massive influx of women into the workplace out of "repentance for sexism," do you? They found religion on "equality" because adding tens of millions of working women to the economy crippled the ability of the men and lower class women to negotiate with them a la wages.)
software developer and student Sean said that he believes a deal of such capacity would be bad for the open source community. "They've shown time and time again that they can't be trusted," he said. Sean and many other believe that Microsoft would eventually start telemetry program on the code repository. "Aside from Microsoft not being trustworthy to the open source community, I'm sure they'll add tracking and possibly even ads to all the sites within GitHub. As well as possibly use it to push LinkedIn (which they own)," he said. Ryan Hoover, the founder of ProductHunt, wrote on Sunday, "Anecdotally, the developer community is very unapproving of this move. I'm curious how Microsoft manages this and how GitHub changes (or doesn't change)."
Ermagerd, dey gonna integrate soshul netwerkz...
Give me a fucking break, Sean. Unless you're in your 30s or older, you probably have no idea how much Microsoft has gone from being the fighting dog pitbull of the industry to being a friendly and loyal black lab between 1998 and 2018. If you told us in 1998 that...
1. Microsoft would open source its Java competitor under better terms than Java... 2. Would fully adopt (as much as anyone other than Mozilla is) open web standards from the browser to all corporate products... 3. Add a Linux compatibility layer... 4. Port Office to a platform like Android... 5. Be the 5th largest contributor to the Linux kernel... 6. Enthusiastically sell cloud services based on Linux... 7. Microsoft would offer more innovative desktops than Apple... 8. Microsoft would compete for OEM licenses on price and merits, not contractual extortion...
We'd have called you a crackhead. Not a dreamer, but a crackhead because only a crackhead would think up a future like that as being plausible. Yet... that's where we're at in 2018
So what I'm hearing is public execution of CEO's. Seems a bit barbaric
If the CEO effectively or directly orders an action that a reasonable person could foresee would lead to the death of their workers or members of the general public, then it most certainly could apply. In fact, a civilized society would not only punish the CEO harshly, but hold the CEO to the strongest standard under noblesse oblige which might merit not only an execution in some cases, but the state liquidating their estate and putting the assets to work for the community and victims (in particular).
Sun Tsu's art of war dictates that a general must publicly execute one of his men so the others fall in line.
Going after the company is not an application of that idea, an application of Roman decimation or any equivalent concept of punishing someone pour encourager les autres. You want to make sphincters pucker here? Real simple. Hold the executive(s) responsible personally. Pierce the corporate veil and go after them directly for ordering non-compliance.
Do tell the location of this magical laptop where nothing is integrated and everything is replaceable/upgradeable.
Nice bait and switch there. No one said anything about it being as replaceable/upgradeable as a typical desktop PC. However, my 2008 MacBook Pro had a replaceable optical drive, hard drive, memory and battery. I bought it with 2GB of RAM and upgraded. I replaced the hard drive twice with faster models as they became available. I had replaced the battery four times.
Apple's marketing and fanbois paint it as "would you like a brick or this elegant and smooth, ultra light beautiful product?" Phrased like that, sure who wouldn't?
Ask the same typical consumer or business buyer: "would you like a device that, in order to be insignificantly thinner, requires open heart surgery to replace the battery and if your RAM or hard drive go bad, you're SOL?"
Then suddenly, the average person says not just no, but "oh hell, no" because this isn't a $700 PC laptop, but a ~$2000 Apple laptop.
Put a designer and a MBA together and you get a team that does not understand that while the MacBook Air is perfectly acceptable as a throw away appliance, that is because it can be had for less than $1k. A normal person who spends $2500 to $3000 for a seriously performant machine in order to be the backbone of their work doesn't want an appliance. They want a machine that can be quickly and cost effectively repaired.
They also have a "mute" feature where someone can try to harass the crap out of you all day by tagging you in posts and it never shows up in your notifications. Just sayin....
Google won't do a damn thing to flex that muscle on something as simple as forcing the carriers to not stymie any updates. I have an unlocked LG G5 and all of the carrier versions are getting updates rolled out. I contacted LG and asked the WTF is going on that my unlocked RS988 is not getting the update. Their response to when it'll be allowed? \_()_/
Is that they're pro-free speech, except when they aren't. When they aren't, you get punished for nebulous reasons and every pedantic poindexter comes racing out to give the lecture "the first amendment only protects you against the government." Well no shit, but that doesn't change the fact that within the scope of the user agreement there is a claimed standard that applies universally, but is actually applied quite selectively. You actually do have a right to tell Facebook that you think they're full of shit and demean them when they are biased and one-sided because even if they put "it's ultimately up to their judgment" in the service agreement, their judgment is still bound to the framework and rules they laid down. A company cannot publicly proclaim to stand against hate speech and then claim that "kill all the honkies" is ok, but "kill all the n-----s" is hate speech because that is a public proclamation that their own standards in the contract they claim to use against you are going to be enforced in bad faith.
How about you start with fining and imprisoning government officials who make statements like Germany has to accept more refugees and must accept that they will commit a lot more crime than Germans (and by crimes we mean rapes, felony assault, child molestation and the occasional act of attempted terrorism, not stealing some extra spending money or bread).
I remember looking at Github Enterprise and finding their licensing model insane. It seemed like a recurring fee of about $5k/20 users/year as a starting point. There was no way I could have solid it to our leadership. $500 for only 20 users, easy sell. $5k? That is a site license of IntelliJ Ultimate or this.
Slashdot Mirror
The majority, according to TFA, though they CDA invalidated the orders from the lower courts or something.
Uh, no. It removes liability. In fact, I seem to recall that under S230, if you refuse to obey court orders and remove content like defamatory posts shit gets real, real fast with the CDA no longer covering you at all.
And this is how the mouth-breathing, window-licking activists who wanted that Backpage-themed bill to gut the CDA got people incensed. The CDA doesn't protect you as a site owner from shit you allow that you know is illegal or civilly actionable. It protects you from liability up until someone comes forward and tells you "we're going to court, deal with this."
If that weren't the case, Gawker would still be here today because they'd have thrown the writers of the Hogan story under the bus and told him the gas bill was on them the moment he threatened to sue.
YouTube users, GMail users, etc. have all complained about similar issues with blackbox, zero accountability. On click, boom, you're done.
IANAL, but this is my theory...
We know that Google is controlled by some highly political people. People who want to be able to disconnect you, deplatform you, etc. at the drop of a dime. The more they make their services a customer service blackbox, the easier it is to get away with acting in bad faith.
By bad faith I mean specifically in contractual bad faith. All of the XKCD-citing hipsters miss a very important nuance of the law regarding "deplatforming assholes:" contracts are judged by the "good faith" conduct of both parties and evaluated by reasonable behavior standards.
They do things like tie your account to all of the services, including purchases, and after a few vague "bad behavior incidents" nuke it. Often taking real assets with them because of how those accounts are tied. I don't think, for instance, Microsoft would fair well if they cost someone $2k of XBox Live marketplace purchases because they cussed out a few butthurt players a few times (Microsoft claims it has the authority to do this). Google is the same way on a larger scale.
The more people that are involved, the more people who can be hauled into court, forced to testify, etc. You can demand they answer why they thought a reasonable person would act that way. You can point to flesh and blood people who are the focal point for a real user suffering real economic harm due to one or a few people's biases.
And then win damages.
IMO that is why you see these companies aggressively moving in this direction. It's about not facing as much accountability for acting like dicks.
I'm not going to make this a gun issue because it's about self-defense in general. In a homogeneous, low-crime, high-trust society like Japan they could probably get away with just reexamining basic laws on mace and things like that. What really matters is something that doesn't get through the smug, protected, middle class set until it's thrown in their face:
If someone wants to kill you, ain't a lot the government can do to stop it with preemptive legislation. If your coworker is willing to kill you, they can just bring a steak knife from home, follow you into the break room or bathroom and attack you. They don't need guns. They just need to be more concerned about killing you than getting away with it with their freedom intact.
And that was clearly the case here.
If companies were to regularly take 10-20% of their profits and divide them up into bonuses for employees who work overtime, I bet a lot of these people would be much happier. Where I work, it is just a given that even if you brought in a few million dollars of new work for the company, if you're not "management," you typically don't see a bonus. Then they wonder why no one below management tends to give a damn about finding new business unless they're guaranteed a salaried slot on it (which is rare, so motivation is low).
In 2015, the same CEO smugly announced a pledge of $300M to promote workplace diversity. You don't spend that kind of shareholder money on something so divorced from the bottom line unless you believe you're invincible. As the marketplace is showing Intel they aren't, and their competition--particularly the ones from Asia--never let things like "social justice" get in the way of winning.
Apple is going to have the same problem too. Tim Cook can talk all day about social issues, particularly gay ones, but apparently can't keep his eyes on the prize as CEO by balancing the entire Mac ecosystem with the iOS one. They haven't produced a genuine professional laptop in probably 2 years now, and now they're cementing their relationship with the "my laptop matches my bag" set by choosing ARM over more powerful CPUs and a 32-64GB of RAM spec for a $2500+ laptop.
Bottom line: "get woke, go broke." All your virtue-signaling a $1.50 won't buy you a latte at Starbucks and the fog of war doesn't care if your soldiers are perfectly sensitive to "women's rights" if they aren't as well-trained and armed as the other army.
You don't want this...
You don't want armed teachers who can pass a CCW process...
We can't afford to station multiple police officers strategically at every school... (most depts would see an extreme increase in manpower costs)
So what is your solution? The status quo, which is draw a magic line around the school, declare "this be a circle of protection, no demons, ghouls or criminals shall cross its magical boundaries" and hope for the best?
The one thing Twitter has not done is reorganized itself and made a public move to fair and equitable enforcement of its policies. It takes a very serious violation of Twitter's rules to get anyone on the left banned from Twitter. You can unequivocally call for someone to be raped and murdered and stand a good chance of keeping your account if Twitter's "community standards enforcers" and "Trust and Safety Council" consider you an ally. Heck, a reporter from CNN got caught putting crosshairs on the President or something like that and Twitter did not lift a finger to punish him or CNN.
(Note that this is why people on the right have started giving zero fucks when seemingly civil liberals whine about "right wing violence." I have liberal friends on Facebooks that, lacking any irony, were whining about right wing violence not long after a Bernie Bro tried to gun down dozens of republican congressmen and nearly killed Scalise. These are the same class off people who call mask-clad rioters and people who mob individuals at their homes and restaurants "protesters")
YouTube is a $2B corporate welfare recipient that considers "fighting white supremacy" one of its most important engineering goals. They're not operating in the real world like most of us where the average person is more likely to be offended that their machine learning specialists are more concerned about Richard Spencer than answering "why are demonic horror movies like Hereditary showing up on channels primarily targeted at small kids."
Who wants to bet their next paycheck that Google's recruiters have never darkened the door at a career fair at a HBC? Where do they think they're likely to find a huge group of black Computer Science majors who aren't African or Caribbean immigrants outside of that?
Google's not stupid. They know where they could aggressively recruit young black people trying to get engineering degrees, but HBCs are too prole for a company that typically only recruits "from the best." And Google doesn't want proles because they might bring truly shocking perspectives like telling Mr. I Identify as a Dragon that he's a total whack job who needs to stop mixing crystal meth and D&D instead of nodding along. (Working and middle class black people tend to be refreshingly willing to call you on your bullshit compared to the upper class yuppies that dominate places like SV)
"Put the criminal content on a small disk and no one will ever find it if I hide it."
Also, it's a small disk and easy to lose and have some random person in your social circle find by accident.
My money is on this being a very good investment for the police in the long run because most people are idiots and they'll never figure out the weakness in the quoted argument.
Announce that within 90 days, a new law will go into effect that does the following:
1. Releases drivers from any civil liability if they take reasonable steps to not hit a pedestrian who violates traffic laws as a result of being on a mobile device.
2. Makes distracted pedestrians liable for vehicle damage and any emotional trauma that is caused to a driver who hits them in compliance with point #1.
3. Allows for the felony prosecution of any distracted pedestrian who causes harm to drivers because they swerve to avoid them and collide with something.
Spring Boot and Grails are definitive proof that 90% of the complaints about learning curve were always a problem of developer culture and not the platform. It is probably easier to do a Spring Boot quickstart now than a Rails or Django one because the basic setup that just works is two files (pom.xml and a Java or Groovy source file).
Their finances were out of control. By Ars Technica's reasonable estimates, they had blown through the majority of the funds they'd already raised, and a lot of it had to do with them blowing insane amounts of money on employee compensation. Plus, they weren't doing nearly enough to sell, sell, sell their enterprise packages to make up for the fact that their whole public site is damn near a loss leader for that line of business.
GitHub probably could have been profitable at least one or two years ago if they'd controlled their costs and gone all-in on selling the enterprise product. I remember 4 years ago their pricing was something like $5k/year/20 years or something like that. It was like it was designed to be unattractive to small teams with limited overhead (we could have afforded a one time $5k license, but the annual renewal was a deal-breaker on the perceived value).
GitHub aligns really well with Microsoft's position as a development tool company. Unless you want Embarcadero or Oracle to buy them, the best big dev tool company to buy them was Microsoft on that front.
Microsoft is also perfectly capable of turning the public site into a loss leader that gets companies to buy the enterprise version. They have the money to easily absorb GitHub's losses as they rebuild the enterprise strategy and open GitHub to Microsoft's full sales channel and task Microsoft corporate sales people with selling it.
And finally, Microsoft is like Apple here in that they have zero motivation right now to screw it up with ads and monetizing user data because they're not an advertising company and they have PLENTY of resources to turn the enterprise side of GitHub from a big loss into a multi-billion dollar business.
There are anywhere from a few million to tens of millions depending on the accounting who just gave up on finding a new job and are not counted anymore.
Labor pool stats are just relative to what we call a proper labor distribution anyway. If 10m millennial women suddenly dropped out of the workforce over a decade to be stay at home wives**, they'd probably call them unemployed. When men who did jobs that were outsourced give up, they call them participants in a ghost economy we won't^H^H^H^H^Hcan't measure Because Reasons.
(**bwahaha you don't think corporate America welcomed a massive influx of women into the workplace out of "repentance for sexism," do you? They found religion on "equality" because adding tens of millions of working women to the economy crippled the ability of the men and lower class women to negotiate with them a la wages.)
Ermagerd, dey gonna integrate soshul netwerkz...
Give me a fucking break, Sean. Unless you're in your 30s or older, you probably have no idea how much Microsoft has gone from being the fighting dog pitbull of the industry to being a friendly and loyal black lab between 1998 and 2018. If you told us in 1998 that...
1. Microsoft would open source its Java competitor under better terms than Java...
2. Would fully adopt (as much as anyone other than Mozilla is) open web standards from the browser to all corporate products...
3. Add a Linux compatibility layer...
4. Port Office to a platform like Android...
5. Be the 5th largest contributor to the Linux kernel...
6. Enthusiastically sell cloud services based on Linux...
7. Microsoft would offer more innovative desktops than Apple...
8. Microsoft would compete for OEM licenses on price and merits, not contractual extortion...
We'd have called you a crackhead. Not a dreamer, but a crackhead because only a crackhead would think up a future like that as being plausible. Yet... that's where we're at in 2018
If the CEO effectively or directly orders an action that a reasonable person could foresee would lead to the death of their workers or members of the general public, then it most certainly could apply. In fact, a civilized society would not only punish the CEO harshly, but hold the CEO to the strongest standard under noblesse oblige which might merit not only an execution in some cases, but the state liquidating their estate and putting the assets to work for the community and victims (in particular).
Going after the company is not an application of that idea, an application of Roman decimation or any equivalent concept of punishing someone pour encourager les autres. You want to make sphincters pucker here? Real simple. Hold the executive(s) responsible personally. Pierce the corporate veil and go after them directly for ordering non-compliance.
Nice bait and switch there. No one said anything about it being as replaceable/upgradeable as a typical desktop PC. However, my 2008 MacBook Pro had a replaceable optical drive, hard drive, memory and battery. I bought it with 2GB of RAM and upgraded. I replaced the hard drive twice with faster models as they became available. I had replaced the battery four times.
Apple's marketing and fanbois paint it as "would you like a brick or this elegant and smooth, ultra light beautiful product?" Phrased like that, sure who wouldn't?
Ask the same typical consumer or business buyer: "would you like a device that, in order to be insignificantly thinner, requires open heart surgery to replace the battery and if your RAM or hard drive go bad, you're SOL?"
Then suddenly, the average person says not just no, but "oh hell, no" because this isn't a $700 PC laptop, but a ~$2000 Apple laptop.
Put a designer and a MBA together and you get a team that does not understand that while the MacBook Air is perfectly acceptable as a throw away appliance, that is because it can be had for less than $1k. A normal person who spends $2500 to $3000 for a seriously performant machine in order to be the backbone of their work doesn't want an appliance. They want a machine that can be quickly and cost effectively repaired.
They also have a "mute" feature where someone can try to harass the crap out of you all day by tagging you in posts and it never shows up in your notifications. Just sayin....
Google won't do a damn thing to flex that muscle on something as simple as forcing the carriers to not stymie any updates. I have an unlocked LG G5 and all of the carrier versions are getting updates rolled out. I contacted LG and asked the WTF is going on that my unlocked RS988 is not getting the update. Their response to when it'll be allowed? \_()_/
Is that they're pro-free speech, except when they aren't. When they aren't, you get punished for nebulous reasons and every pedantic poindexter comes racing out to give the lecture "the first amendment only protects you against the government." Well no shit, but that doesn't change the fact that within the scope of the user agreement there is a claimed standard that applies universally, but is actually applied quite selectively. You actually do have a right to tell Facebook that you think they're full of shit and demean them when they are biased and one-sided because even if they put "it's ultimately up to their judgment" in the service agreement, their judgment is still bound to the framework and rules they laid down. A company cannot publicly proclaim to stand against hate speech and then claim that "kill all the honkies" is ok, but "kill all the n-----s" is hate speech because that is a public proclamation that their own standards in the contract they claim to use against you are going to be enforced in bad faith.
How about you start with fining and imprisoning government officials who make statements like Germany has to accept more refugees and must accept that they will commit a lot more crime than Germans (and by crimes we mean rapes, felony assault, child molestation and the occasional act of attempted terrorism, not stealing some extra spending money or bread).
I remember looking at Github Enterprise and finding their licensing model insane. It seemed like a recurring fee of about $5k/20 users/year as a starting point. There was no way I could have solid it to our leadership. $500 for only 20 users, easy sell. $5k? That is a site license of IntelliJ Ultimate or this.