“…make big bank…”
Fuck me. Americanisms like this are like listening to a mentally retarded toddler tell you about their day.
Somebody please wake me if America collectively ever decides to go through puberty.
2284 publicly visible posts • joined 17 Aug 2009
The reason this statement > "The iPhone is a computer; you just can't use it as one most of the time because it's a closed system." is because the iPhone's ability to be used as a computer is not determined by the 'closed-ness' or otherwise of the system. And to state you can't use it as a computer most of the time because of this is patently absurd.
"A computer is an electronic device that processes data according to instructions that are provided by computer programs."
For the record, I've upvoted your post because it's reasonable and correct. I would say that "Not only this, but it's perfectly reasonable to expect a service to monetise itself by means of a subscription" is a means to monetise, but by no means the only way. Collecting and selling user data is a fully legitimate way to monetise the provision of a free service, as long as the terms and conditions are clearly articulated so the user can make an informed choice.
As I've said - and been downvoted for - many times above.
"Instead one must log out on their phone to disconnect the browser from the account. The browser, a separate app running on the device, not the phone OS itself."
Yes, so logging the browser out, remotely, disconnects it from the [Google] account. It doesn't need to be done on the phone, it can be done remotely. Which is what the OP wanted to do, but claimed couldn't be done.
Stop trying to drive home a point which has been demonstrated - multiple times - to be wrong.
”Your page is not relevant to their problem.“
The OP stated: “Worse, there's no sensible way to log out. Instead one must log out on their phone to disconnect the browser from the account. The browser, a separate app running on the device, not the phone OS itself.
My answer (well, technically Google’s answer) provided a sensible way to log out, without being ”on the phone” - as the OP put it. And is thus very relevant.
If the OP meant something other than what they wrote, then they need to be clearer in describing the issue.
Worse, there's no sensible way to log out. Instead one must log out on their phone to disconnect the browser from the account.
Easy. Sign out of devices you no longer use
So, feel free to continue being a fanboy/shill for Google
Could not be further from the truth. In fact if anything, I'm Apple through and through and generally have a deep dislike for anything Googley - as my history here clearly shows. I just intensely dislike misinformation.
...that what they really trade in is people's privacy and they'll do whatever to get hold of information. Information. INFORMATION!
Absolutely correct, and literally nobody here is denying this. The point, as people seem to be wilfully obtuse in understanding, is that they have a RIGHT to monetise the provision of a free service; and to set the conditions of that monetisation. You're not obliged to use the service, in which case your data and privacy won't be an issue; but if you do use it, expect to accept their terms - that your data and privacy pays the bills.
Oh sure the Streisand effect is in evidence here; and the downvotes don't bother me at an emotional level. Interesting analogy of the slight-head-shake-and-sigh; I think that's accurate. I also think that if people did that to you in real life when you made a simple, logical and correct statement, you would be equally intrigued as to why they appear to misunderstand or disapprove of something so basic. In fact if it happened in real life, you would be justified in asking them why. As in fact I'm doing here.
"No, sorry, that is not an objective fact: it is false. I would claim that the exact contrary is an objective fact: many expensive services can be expected to be provided to many people for free because it enables the provider to generate more money somewhere else (which may have nothing to do with monetising the provision of the service)."
Even if the money is being generated somewhere else, it's still monetising the provision of the service. If Microsoft provides OneDrive for "free" as an enticement to sell Office 365 subscriptions, then it is still monetising the provision of the OneDrive service through revenue generated through said subscriptions and elsewhere. If a government provides a "free" service such as the NHS, it is being monetised in the background by NI contributions and taxes with the express intention of providing the service back to the people who have funded it. Sure, there may be freeloaders who have never contributed yet expect to use it, but my original point stands:
"it is objective fact that people may not expect that an expensive service be provided to them for free". Some may try to obtain it for free, as has been evidenced by the comments on this thread, but they may not expect it.
It beggars belief that so many (presumably) otherwise intelligent people fail to understand this most basic of concepts.
@doublelayer thank you for your comment. For subjective questions, you're absolutely right. The thing is, I'm genuinely interested in the reasons for downvoting posts which are nothing but objective fact. Are people downvoting because they are denying the fact? Or because they know in their hearts that the fact is true, but just don't like it; and therefore dislike by proxy the person stating the fact?
To reference the theme of my comments on this thread: it is objective fact that people may not expect that an expensive service be provided to them for free, and that the provider of the service is entitled to look for ways to cover costs and monetise the provision of the service.
And yet it is set in stone that to state this fact generates a flood of downvotes. Why? Do people believe the statement is incorrect? I would like to know, but unfortunately without making it mandatory to provide a comment when voting, the answers will likely never be known...
"I don't have one of those. And I don't store (let alone provide back) any cookies from their sites. And that means they have never received any permission to record or guess or use or store anything about me."
In which case they don't have any data that the law says they're not allowed to have without permission. Unless you're claiming they collect it ILLEGALLY, which is a whole different ballgame. I suspect you'd need proof if you wanted to be taken seriously on that.
"so they just try to steal my data without permission."
How do you know? Where and how do they do this? Do you have any evidence?
"Users aren't getting something for nothing."
They're not - but many assume they're entitled to it. Which is what the I, the OP and anybody else with more than half a brain is saying.
""Google doesn't force feed anybody anything."" (quotes Google paying Apple to be the default search engine).
Last I checked, you weren't obliged to use Apple. Or their default search engine. There are other alternatives out there, you know.
"Opting out (if someone can even first realise or understand that they've been opted in) is a deliberately byzantine process spread across multiple pages/sites."
Go to your Google Account.
On the left, click Data & privacy.
Under “Linked Google Services,” select Manage linked services.
Select the services you want linked and select Next.
Review your selections and select Confirm and then Done and then Got it.
Ooh. Rocket science.
The safest, simplest assumption to make is that if you're using a free service, any and all of your data that they can (legally) get their hands on can and will be slurped.
If users don't want this, they need to pay for the service (and even then, check the T&Cs carefully).
"until Google update their system to detect all adblockers and simply refuse to show anything let alone a message saying that YouTube does not like you for using an adblocker."
Which they're perfectly entitled to do, in exchange for providing a 'free' service. There's no reason why they should provide the service without compensation in some form or other, and your data is the currency which pays for it.
"I'm just sick and tired of these wargames and the constant back and forth with entitled wanker corps and their belief that they are entitled to my information and privacy"
And I'm sick of entitled wanker users running around expecting the world on a plate for free.
If you're using a 'free' service, like YouTube, then it's fair that they lay down certain T&Cs in order to monetise. In the case of YouTube, you get access to videos, a content creation suite and a platform for promotion, in exchange for your data which pays for the service. You don't have to use it, and they're not obliged to provide it to you free of charge.
Either man up, stop trying to get something for nothing, or stop using it. Either way, stop complaining.
OP's comment was: "I'd also like to see chargers associated with retail businesses able to be paid for using cash. At the very least, if the network isn't working but the power is on, you could charge your car."
Chargers associated with retail businesses, able to be paid for using cash, when power is on but the network isn't working. It's a niche case. Extrapolating this with an 8th floor, 100m from road business takes it into the 1000ths-of-a-percent probability range.
But yes well done you, for identifying a situation that 1 in a million people are likely to actually come across and using that to pooh-pooh a solution that works for everybody else. Fail yourself.
"...so takes over the steering to move you away from it - straight into the pothole/vehicle you were trying to avoid"
It doesn't 'take over' anything; it gives a gentle nudge. Pressure in the right direction, if you will. Yes this can be a bit nannying (I have mine turned off for that reason) but it's a world away from the Rise of the Robots you're implying.
”They'll happily "share your information with their partners" which in most other non-biz languages translates to "we will sell you information to anybody with the dosh".“
No, they won’t and don’t. And it’s not because they’re altruistic or honourable; by keeping the data of Apple users to themselves, and using this to develop unique goods and services, it gives them a massive competitive edge. If they shared the data, they would simply be enabling the competition to compete more effectively; right now it’s worth more to them private than public.
The second reason is that Apple use their data privacy stance to differentiate themselves in the marketplace, and thus gain a subset of clients they otherwise wouldn’t have eg governments.
"Pretty toxic work environment if there is a target you have to reach but you aren't told what it is."
I would assume like many sales targets, her KPIs rewarded her for results not effort. So when she says she has the 'highest activity' (=effort), but compounds this with not actually having closed anything (=results), that's a recipe for an expensive yet low-productivity employee.
"Or he's a lying creep who didn't want to face her."
Given that the CEO pulled no punches in saying we didn't make a mistake in the decision, just the communication, I strongly suspect that this is the case. For whatever reason, the company sincerely believed her performance wasn't up to scratch; yet the manager couldn't or wouldn't tell her this.
"But any healthy org needs to get the people who aren’t performing off. That wasn’t the mistake here. The mistake was not being more kind and humane as we did. And that’s something."
Wow. Really not backing down on the "she was genuinely shit" message then - even up to CEO level.
May I suggest that another area for improvement here then is being honest, open and candid with employees about their performance? Clearly Brittany had a wildly different view of her 'performance' than the company did- and the CEO is right, being let go for performance reasons should never be a surprise.
Last year I was contacted by the tax office saying there was a shortfall in my PAYE and I needed to pay upwards of 4 grand.
In fact what they ACTUALLY said was: "You owe us 4 grand, and you have 30 days to pay it." Not a joke, not an exaggeration. That's what they said. After contacting them and being given the runaround by a number of tax office telephone support peeps who were pleasant enough but just didn't know the reason, one called me back and told me it was because my client had used the wrong tax code, and had underpaid tax in the previous tax year; which they were reclaiming.
Luckily (due to years of experience in contracting fuckery) I have a slush fund for situations like this and could pay it. But imagine if I couldn't? Plenty of people don't have 4 grand floating around, and tax offices aren't known for their leniency - so even though it was a client fuckup, they still came to me.
"Well the Zionists bomb hospitals..."
No they don't, and didn't. It's easy being a PoS shill until you bounce up against somebody who actually has genuine firsthand experience of what you're pretending happened.
Now isn't there a "protest" in London you need to be attending?
The critical word here is 'latency'. Meaning: it's ridiculously easy, and secure, to have a backup of older data that doesn't change very much, and that you have tons of time to recover it. If this were the only consideration, ransomware would cease to exist as a viable vector for extortion.
It becomes several orders of magnitude more complex when your data changes rapidly, and/or you need access to it in anywhere near realtime. Now, it's simply not possible to "offsite it to an SD card, I know not where".
Agree they're shitty. My ex uses (used) them, told me how she'd tried to cancel a number of times, yet they continued to deliver parcels; claiming they hadn't received the cancellation or it was received too late and therefore had to be extended, or was just plain ignored. Then when she stopped paying they tried to take her to court.
Nasty, scummy practices. Mitigated somewhat by the fact they were doing it to my ex, but that's neither here nor there.
""When the punishment for breaking the law is a fine, it becomes two laws - one for the rich and another for the poor""
Caveat to this is when the fine is means-tested. See also: speeding fines in the UK and some other countries, calculated as a percentage of the weekly wage. Ergo: it doesn't matter how rich you are, in theory the fine is intended to hurt everyone equally.
Unless you're doing a tax dodge whereby your 'declared' income is close to zero, while in the meantime you're living in a 16-bedroom mansion with 8 cars, 12 servants and a separate lodge for the mistress.