Didn’t even offer a refund it sounds like.

“Hey, I know we just fucked up and let a ton of personal information out into the wild. As compensation how would you like to keep using us?”

I will point out there are actually pretty good driverless cars, they just aren’t made by Tesla. Look up Waymo if you want to look into them.

I’m going to second this, the linked video explains a lot of the controversy really well.

I agree it would be best for Wikipedia to address this on their end, but I have actually no idea where to begin with asking them to make a change like this.

It actually does switch automatically on mobile, just not desktop, which is why I get annoyed enough when it happens to mention it.

Please, anyone who reads this, stop posting links to the mobile version of Wikipedia. It doesn’t switch automatically on PC, and I see it happen all the time. Just take the half a second to remove the “.m” from the beginning of the link, save everyone else from the pain of having to be surprised by it and taking the time to do it themselves.

What do you mean unless it was also from a ballot measure? I’d say it should override laws even from a ballot measure since the new ballot measure is more recent, though in that case it would be best to communicate that the new ballot measure is overriding the old one just for clarity sake.

Perpetual licences have their place, like I’m reasonably confident under the hood you have a perpetual licences for the OS your phone runs on. The point isn’t to get a piece of software that will be updated and supported forever, it’s to get something that works, fits your needs, and that you know can’t just be revoked at the whim of another. Problem is that last one is becoming increasingly untrue.

I mean fuck AT&T, but fuck needless consolidation, pointless service bundling, and revocation of perpetual licences even more.

I for one would be fine with a digital ID to be used for even age verification, so long as it is only used for verification and is completely detached from any other form of identification. Honestly I’m getting kinda sick of rumors of Russian and Chinese trolls, true or not, as well as AI commenters influencing genuine discourse.

Au contraire, the devil absolutely needs an advocate, to make sure he’s being called out on the right bullshit and not just whatever accusation is thrown his way.

Be called out for saying something controversial best I can tell, the term I think originated on Twitter to refer to a comment getting a lot more retweets than likes.

It’s the argument a lot of politicians are making, that once platforms start curating user generated content they become responsible for it despite section 230. I think it’s bullshit, but it is the argument being made.

I’m pretty sure that exists and is just called unlisted, or if you only want them to be available to yourself private.

The rule could create some perverse incentives, such as discouraging some startup founders from taking their companies public.

Honestly good, companies going public creates perverse incentives for those companies to screw over their customers and the economy at large out of a drive for quarterly gains.

It’s uncommon, but certainly not unheard of.

IIRC it’s technically proper to still use that title for former presidents, but very few actually do out of justified distaste for the man himself, along with the fact that it’s definitely not a good idea to say anything that might imply you think he’s still actually the president.

I agree that doing this and nothing else isn’t enough, but it will help and there isn’t any other one thing that would solve the problem either. Problems like this require a wide array of answers each of which only help a little but taken together are the solution.

Isn’t that because Microsoft either pays system integrators to only install Windows or threatens that they will stop providing relatively cheap Windows keys if they provide the option to start with Linux? I could have sworn I’d heard that somewhere.

So just because this one thing won’t solve the problem on its own we shouldn’t do it. More housing, and especially more affordable housing will help by virtue of creating more supply, and the alternative is building less new housing which has the exact same problem as what you bring up with building more. On top of that corporations and landlords and Airbnb “investors” don’t purchase all the housing that is available right now, so even if the rate at which that occurred stayed the same in absolute terms this would mean a lot more housing becoming available to actual residents.