TheHalc

take responsibility [… like] human drivers do.

But do they really? If so, why’s there the saying “if you want to murder someone, do it in a car”?

I do think self-driving cars should be held to a higher standard than humans, but I believe the fundamental disagreement is in precisely how much higher.

While zero incidents is naturally what they should be aiming for, it’s more of a goal for continuous improvement, like it is for air travel.

What liability can/should we place on companies that provide autonomous drivers that will ultimately lead to safer travel for everyone?

Archive.is used to block people with Finnish IPs too, allegedly because of personal immigration issues.

I don’t get the impression it’s something anyone should ever rely on.

Sure, but there’s not much they can do about it if things are properly encrypted, for example using DKE on M365.

Sounds like your issue is a shitty workplace and shitty managers more than it is not not working from home.

This is what I was thinking. I’m very lucky to live somewhere where I can live without a car - even here in Helsinki, that’s not always possible.

It’d be the equivalent to spending an extra 2-3 hours a day working (because that’s what the total commute would be), plus money on vehicle upkeep

Maybe this is one of the reasons I actually prefer going to the office. For me, it’s only 15 minutes by metro.

No additional cost, very little wasted/lost time, and I actually enjoy being able to draw a line between work and life by putting them in different physical spaces.

Perhaps it also helps that my managers encourage people to work from wherever they feel they’re the most productive. It’s nice to know that I have the option to work from home without having to explain myself.

Amazon is shitting money. They’re not exactly a typical company.

Maybe for a small number of companies in a small number of industries, but most companies rent their office premises, even large companies.

I’ve worked at several multinational companies that sold their HQ buildings when they recognised that building management was not a core competence for them and tying up capital in real estate has a significant opportunity cost for them.

It’s no skin off their noses if commercial real estate plummets in value - if anything, it would be in their favour as their rent would decrease.

Nope. There’s a reason they go after video games that use the red cross symbol for health packs, that dilutes the meaning of what the red cross stands for.

I think Apple users typically fall into one of a few different categories:

1. “I’m a creative/visionary”
2. “I don’t really understand computers”
3. “I need a native Unix command line”

Thanks for the link, but I already provided links to all three patents (confusingly, with the same names) that they were making claims on in my reply.

The thing about patents is that they are regularly granted for blindingly obvious processes that should never be patentable. It’s not just companies like Google that get screwed by this, it’s individual developers, FOSS projects… All sorts.

The patent system is fundamentally broken.

Google doesn’t need me to defend them, but the patents in question seem really generic and obvious…

Play control of content on a display device

Play control of content on a display device

Play control of content on a display device

All filed in 2011.

Patent trolls aren’t the little guy, nor are they a good thing for the little guys out there.

I have a Withings ScanWatch. Almost all of that (except for custom watchfaces, because it uses a physical watchface).

It also does the heart tracking and ECG stuff, but that matters to me because I have a heart condition that it can help track.

This won’t do anything to cut any costs.

This is all about enshittifying the free experience to push those on the edge to finally bite the bullet and start paying.

Wow, if they haven’t already cleared this with the existing company or lawyers, this is embarrassing.

Wouldn’t you do a quick search as an early step in any branding exercise?

They’ll renegotiate, get some minor additional concessions and fall in line.

It depends on their aspirations.

Did they have too many engineers if all they wanted to do was keep the lights on for their core business? Yes.

Did they have too many engineers if they wanted to have the capacity to deliver more ambitious products and solutions, such as massively scalable live video streams, or social audio, or something entirely new? Maybe not.