freeassociate2
Just another faceless crustacean dog-toy.
About
- Username
- freeassociate2
- Joined
- Visits
- 51
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 860
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 236
Reactions
-
Apple appeal to pause injunction enforcement allowing external linking fails
Uhhhh… isn’t it the other way around? The developers are battling Apple in court, not Apple suing them. So let’s not obscure who the instigators are, yes?These software companies … because let’s be clear these are not solo or small developers, but large companies led by overcompensated executives and owners trying to squeeze everything they can out of everyone, including their users and employees.These software companies typically erect barriers to leaving platforms in ways that Apple prohibits. Cancellation runarounds, either on their sites or through thier customer service. Refund issues. Overcharges, particularly with kids. Awful pricing arrangements. No family sharing. Unresponsive support.
Stop me if I’m wrong here, but most of these companies are not good community members but are either close to or are actually predatory. Guess we’ll see how that works out.
Personally, I do try to deal directly with companies when it makes sense. I often get better service and convenience buying direct than using retailers like Assmazon and Walfart.But I’ll point out that there’s no cross-linking of who’s got a better deal. I have to do the legwork, so to speak. If one doesn’t have the intelligence to know that there are shopping options, I don’t think a link out is going to help. But that’s just me I guess.
It just seems so nonsensical. Can I scan bar codes at Target and pay the manufacturer directly, whereby the onus is on the manufacturer to reimburse the retailer at the adjusted price? Can I easily pay the Walmart price at Amazon, or Joe-Shmo stores, or are there lots of barriers to getting the price adjusted?My point is that there’s are lots of points of friction when purchasing anything, yet there’s no mass revolt or market defining lawsuits on the part of either manufacturers, retailers, or consumers to make it easier. Yet here we are quibbling about shopping links. It’s bizarre, not bazaar.
-
EU antitrust agency may not fine Apple much to avoid tariff war escalation
doucheynameoftruth said:hammeroftruth said:Was it that, or was it that the economy worldwide isn’t doing that great and the EU is picking its battles a little more wisely. US retail numbers aren’t too good and I don’t expect the EU’s numbers to be much better.Or it’s a sign that retaliatory fines don’t work. There’s a thought.
-
House Judiciary Committee subpoenas Apple over AI censorship
22july2013 said:People here believe that private companies should be allowed to censor their customers and employees, and that the government should not be allowed to stop it. While this is true, the government has many "100% legal options" at their disposal, such as not buying any products for their own employees from companies that censor free speech. Therefore, investigations serve a purpose.
Besides, an investigation is itself protected under free speech laws, since Congress cannot censor itself either, and people typically forget that constitutional rights also apply to elected officials.“ …100% legal options" at their disposal, such as not buying any products for their own employees from companies that censor free speech.”
How is it that folks don’t understand that the Federal government (or State) trying to control a corporation’s behavior on speech through discriminatory practices IS a giant ducking 1st Amendment violation? Can you imagine if the Dems were doing this? Conservatives would be performatively apoplectic.
Ya’ll have some seriously misguided views of what the real laws are regarding speech in the U.S. Do some research peeps, and leave the legal opinions to people that know what they’re talking about.
-
Find My misfire leads to SWAT raid on grandmother
So let me get this straight… you think that a) there’s no requirement to identify residents on the affidavit to search a location and that a judge signed off on it, b) that even if there weren’t such a requirement, officers walked into a possible violent confrontation without using the tools at their disposal to determine what they were facing, c) that the police willfully didn’t determine if the elderly or children were present, d) did all of this without the probable foreknowledge of the race of the occupants (based on area, name, criminal records, etc)chadbag said:
Most ignorant statement of the day. The police obviously had no clue who was there at the address. They just used the Find My results and went in. Trying to make it about race and police is just dumb. Especially with no evidence.MrBunside said:Unfortunately, "she was a black woman" is the answer. AgainHopefully someone at the Denver PD gets an epiphany and settles this to the victims favor and then instigates a “policing 101” course at the PD that emphasizes actual police work. Gum shoeing it. Surveillance. Other sorts of old school work. Technology doesn’t replace the actual police work. It can enhance it and provide additional information but does not replace fundamentals.
Which means either there’s a whole lot of magical thinking on your part (based on my experience of what my friends in law enforcement would do — and the several that made incredulous faces when I sent this article to them for feedback). Or…
Or…
The inescapable conclusion that the Denver police department is so dysfunctional and inept that it didn’t occur to anyone in the chain of command, the rank and file on the ground, or the anyone in the legal system that this plan had serious deficiencies and serious possible repercussions?
To quote my buddies, “Someone, probably more than one, absolutely knew there was an elderly black woman there and didn’t give two shits. That’s exactly how institutional racism plays out.”
