>You're free to repair it on your own... If you can.
You literally can't. It's proprietary software that you have a limited license to. This isn't like a deprecated Linux distro that you can always jump in and patch the security issues yourself.
Hell I'm sure if these tractors ran on free software, there'd be a business out there competing against the manufacturer by fixing old tractor software if it meant pulling in consulting fees from the farmers. But they can't, because we live in a world where you don't own software, you lease it.
That's like saying if I send an email via Gmail, Google should feel free to do whatever it wants with the headers, because it's supposed to be publicly viewable so the mail server knows where it should go. (See also the NSA phone call metadata scandal.)
In reality, when you send a letter, you are placing it into the care of the postal service. Your letter is only handled by postal employees, and mailbox privacy is codified in federal law. There's clearly an expectation that the postal service is not releasing your information to third parties without your consent. The information on the outside of the envelope is not meant for, nor is it needed by, anyone other than the postal service
Nowhere does it say that post office employees are the only ones who can handle your mail, and in reality the postal service has a ton of contractors that also handle the mail. They do stuff like bulk delivery and OCRing hand written addresses.
A friend of mine contracted with one of the companies that does the hand writing recognition, and if the computers can't recognize an address then a picture of the envelopes get sent off to a team of data entry people who see the address on a screen and type it in by hand.
It's also fairly common for delivery people to screw up and deliver mail to the wrong address, especially in large apartment complexes.
There's also nothing special about postal employees. Why would you trust them more than anybody else? They're bound by the same federal mail tampering laws as everybody else, but nothing above and beyond that.
That's not true. Both your USPS envelopes and ISP/webservice headers are not protected by any law. The info can and is often shared with law enforcement based on simple request (without a warrant), if the 3rd party chooses to share -- which they often do. Sometimes Google and others have an official policy of resistance, but that's their choice, not your choice.
What a dumb response. Airbnb isn't going to do something it's not required to. Suggesting that they have a moral responsibility to enforce the law on hosts is silly. If you want them to build a system that assists law enforcement, pass legislation that requires they do.
Good hotel still have pools, can be located outside of downtown, and sometimes even in-room kitchens (if that's what you want). They also have maid service, room service, and a front desk.
The only advantage you get from an AirBnB is a unique facade, paired with having to clean up after yourself and possible fire and health code violations.
I lived in a hotel for a month. It was hell. That was before the AirBnB era and at a time when VRBO wasn't really an option and was inconvenient.
I agree that for simple stays - check in, do stuff, stay a day or two, leave - hotels are great. But for long periods, AirBnb can be much, much better.
For me the line is: are you staying long enough to need to do laundry or where you will get to the point don't want to eat out most/every meal? Then AirBnB is a better choice.
I agree that, for periods of a week or more, AirBnB can be a better option but...the chances of encountering problems are significantly higher. My worst experiences thus far have all involved noisy, disruptive neighbours.
In a hotel, you can address this problem quite easily. With AirBnB, you have to just live with it.
There are exceptions, but most hotels are nothing like an Airbnb home. You'll find that a multi-room suite with a kitchen is very, very expensive compared to an Airbnb.
I've never encountered an Airbnb where you have to clean up after yourself, nor have I encountered an Airbnb that has fire and health code violations.
But again, different experiences. For example, a two-bedroom vacation home with a private pool, its own parking space, maybe its own beachfront, etc. is going to be nothing like a hotel.
Good hotels also overcharge for parking, have slow, sketchy WiFi, charge $10 for a bottle of water and every person you encounter requires a gratuity. I like hotels but they can be annoying and everything in the hotel is overpriced and designed to squeeze your wallet. There is no excuse for a bottle of water that costs $10 when the same bottle at the 7-11 outside sells it for $1.99. Even worse are hotels that charge a mandatory “resort fee.”
You're just going to bad hotels. Every hotel I've stayed at in the US in the past quarter (around six of them) had ~16 Mbps free Wi-Fi, complimentary water bottles in my room each day, and free parking (with the exception of hotels in Manhattan or the likes).
I'll admit that gratuity is annoying, but that's a cultural problem with the US, not something specific to hotels. We just happen to live in a country where every person who serves you is expecting a tip. And to be fair, if I was staying at an AirBnB that for whatever reason had housecleaning or other service, I'd probably have to leave a tip there too.
* Always with public transport, no parking needed
* I've never tipped anyone in a hotel
* EU roaming is free, no need for wifi
* Fill the minifridge with my own beverages
All the AirBnbs I've stayed at have been somewhat sketchy, while this rarely happens with a hotel. Furthermore, I know hotels are fully legal and won't cancel my booking.
AirBnb is a clear winner when traveling with a small group though, as a multi-bed apartment is a better holiday experience and much cheaper than multiple hotel rooms.
A mugger can get into your device - less relevant now given that wallets are where the value is 99% of the time but given pay with phone options growing in popularity that might be a matter of concern eventually.
I feel like that's getting the threat model wrong. The mugger wants to spend as little time with you as possible. If a fingerprint is needed to make purchases, then it can actually be significantly better than a PIN, and even a PIN is a lot better than nothing because they have to memorize it.
Sure. Have a fingerprint or PIN or whatever. Totally reasonable. Mugger takes your phone in a rush, can’t unlock it later, sells it for $10 to someone who’ll gut it for the pieces. Sucks, but not as bad as the mugger also emptying your bank account.
But my response is to the belief that a security factor that cannot be directly taken by force is somehow more secure. If you’re guarding The Football, sure. You might actually be willing to die for that. If you’re willing to die rather than reveal your PIN to a mugger, though, your advice is not applicable to the vast majority of the population who value their lives more than their bank accounts.
The way around that complicates things - validation of circumstances and parties outside the sphere of power can avoid it. Anyone trying to force a withdrawal from someone's account at gunpoint at a bank itself would just be robbing the bank itself. Which being federally insured means robbing the federal government by force of arms. Which draws a heavy response from any sort of government.
I have noted that spiteful to lethal anti coercion measures seem surprisingly rare given the premium paid for security and even when a lesser value to human life is assigned. They would use ink bombs for robbers and not time delayed or remote triggered fragmentation bombs with the loot. I assume relative rarity and baseline risks (even military bases in hostile regions tend to restrict arms to the armory except for MPs, on duty soldiers, and maybe personal side arms for ranking officers who keep it holstered most of the time as opposed to readied) and margins are why even in places where security is tenuous enough that foreign businesses travel arrangements include at least one mercenary with an AK47 or its descendant as a guide, driver and bodyguard due to their guest being a relative king's ransom.
Theoretically ATMs could be fortress panopticons watched 24-7 and with a SWAT team readied to deal with compelled withdrawals but that just plain wouldn't be a sensible use of resources - cameras, willingness to write off or insure losses and policing makes far more sense.
Not annoying, just Hacker News. Funny/cute/meme/etc typically gets downvoted, even if it’s directly relevant, because of the strong fear of turning into the circle jerk of endless shitty joke threads like Reddit.
Am I wrong that an (inevitable) biometric data breach would mean this can be done on the cheap (if you were unlucky enough to have given your data to a third party)?
Maybe it's just me but my experience is that except for the actual streaming (after you started to watch a movie), the Netflix UI is super bad. It recommends movies which I hate, it shows series which have been on Netflix for years under "New on Netflix", it doesn't provide any usable sorting, the searching is crap and so on. I would put zero faith in a statement by Netflix saying that something is "useless". The actual streaming experience is super good but when it comes to everything else they seem clueless to me.
I'm miss the old days of reviews and Genre grouping on the home page. I used to get great indie film recommendations and could occasionally go "dumpster diving" for lower rated movies and find some gems.
Honestly, I think Netflix has become full of themselves. They pretend to have discovered some universal truths in how to create the best UI experience and suggestion system, and yet they have A/B tested tge interface over the years to this pile of garbage. It even hangs Edge frequently when I first open it there; the only browser that will play 1080p for me!
I find it interesting that there isn't yet a sort of "streaming-service library discovery/manager" app that doesn't do any streaming of its own, but rather just offers a good discovery UI for the streaming services you connect it to, where clicking "watch" in the service deep-links to the individual content item in the respective streaming app.
This has been done to death in other content areas (I think there are more emulated-game library browsers than there are emulators!) so why not for streaming services? Is it that the streaming services don't expose the deep-linking ability?
"Declining use" is a result of Netflix's own decisions to downplay reviews because they were helping people decide not to watch movies they wouldn't like.
Why should Netflix care if you watch or don’t watch a given movie? What they should care about is whether you stay a subscriber or not. If they try to push too much garbage, and not provide good tools to filter out the crappy content, they’re just wasting people’s time. Users will get frustrated and leave. I did!
You'd think, but the people running Netflix are human. They do not always put business success first. There have been a number of highly political things produced by Netflix that were heavily promoted. People slammed them hard in the reviews and comments.
I am not a Netflix user, so this is just a guess, not an analysis. But could it be because user reviews used to be featured more prominently, but they were de-emphasized into oblivion over multiple years and UI updates?
I know a news organization I visit frequently did this to their comment section. After their last UI design, they might as well have been put them the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.
I used the reviews. Sometimes a movie would be polarizing and I’d read the good ones and the bad ones to see if I’d like it myself. It’s not a hugely valuable feature (I can do the same on eg Rotten Tomatoes), but it wasn’t unused.
I can believe that's all true. So people now primarily consume the content through interfaces that inherently would make it difficult to interact with reviews. (And I suspect if they did pop up a box asking you to add a review after you watched something that would really annoy everyone.)
In a lot of ways, the user reviews are mostly a vestige of when people used them while adding DVDs to their queue.
They didn’t have it in the UI. There is nothing inherently difficult about browsing reviews on a mobile device. Millions do it every time they’re about to download an app. There is no option to read reviews given to effectively 85% of their viewers. That was their design decision. And now they’re citing review usage numbers when their design decisions promoted low review usage numbers. They’re providing a circular argument which implies that it is not the main reason.
You literally can't. It's proprietary software that you have a limited license to. This isn't like a deprecated Linux distro that you can always jump in and patch the security issues yourself.
Hell I'm sure if these tractors ran on free software, there'd be a business out there competing against the manufacturer by fixing old tractor software if it meant pulling in consulting fees from the farmers. But they can't, because we live in a world where you don't own software, you lease it.