Buddahriffic

And the whole "try but back down if it isn't going so well" strategy is the worst part of it all because it helps them without even if a judge would laugh them out of court over it because of the set of people that would back down or be happy with a lesser settlement, which is probably larger than the set of people that would fight it anyways, plus there's the subset of people that would want to fight anyways but don't have the resources to do so.

That's why I hate the whole system of "treat it as if it is all good until someone (who was specifically harmed by this) takes it to court". And that's even before getting to the part where the decision in the end rests in the hands of a single or maybe a small group of judges.

I wonder if the language selection is similar to how they use bad grammar specifically to filter out people smart enough to see bad grammar as a red flag when it's supposed to be a professional communication.

Yeah, a lot of these fingerprinting capabilities seem like things that should be behind permission requests, if not outright disabled entirely.

Like ok, I get that if someone wanted to make a browser-based audio editing tool, it might be useful for javascript to be able to sample the output side after effects have been applied. But I don't want every single fucking website to have that capability by default. I'm not even sure I want websites to be able to play audio at all without permission.

By default, it should be a one way pipeline. Whatever they put into the pipeline gets displayed or played but they can't see any of the system-specific results. I'd prefer the standard be designing pages to work with any resolution instead of letting them query the exact pixel dimensions, which varies per device and I suspect fingerprinting was the reason they were designed like that in the first place.

There should be standard TOS clauses that are approved based on their legality and enforceability that click or use based "contracts" should be limited to. Or at the very least, they should need to be legally ratified rather than only looked at closely if legally challenged.

Like that whole "you waived our liability for real world shit by using Disney+" should have resulted in the disbarment of any lawyers that wrote, approved, and tried to argue it in court when it came up and punitive damages to Disney for even trying.

Everyone? The group of people that includes those who can't use their computer after their desktop icons get sorted?

It still takes some skills, but those skills might just be "desoldering chips to stick them in a chip reader device" and doing that on the storage chips. Or maybe tapping a trace to read the signals that are sent over it to grab a key or something. "Not hard" doesn't mean "you don't need skill to do it", it means "someone who has some skills won't have difficulty applying them".

Yeah, I gotta say that while shit is looking pretty bad on the corporate producer side of things, this society/system has bred a ton of entitled consumers that think their desires are important to anyone that can make or do things.

Even if you're paying someone for something, that doesn't mean you can dictate what they do or how they do it. Or even that they need to offer you what they willingly offer others. There's some people where no amount of money would make dealing with them worthwhile, let alone what they are willing to pay for special treatment.

But with FOSS, there isn't even the incentive of money greasing the interaction. It's just pure entitlement. No one owes you anything just because you're interested in their project or skills.

And electrically, if they are able to drive speakers, that same signal can drive headphones. It just needs the port.

Ged's gonna be pissed!

Try turning the lights out and vacuuming using only that light. Probably doesn't make much of a difference on carpet, though.

Reported for trying to guess forbidden knowledge.

The person with this specific complaint didn't make this comic, they just replaced the text in the 3rd panel.

I believe it is an attempt to use an argument that they will care about. You could write a brilliant piece about how that many bots hurt culture and society but if the ones you want to convince don't gaf about either of those, they probably won't even read what you have to say, let alone change anything because of it.

Or, more likely, they won't even see anything here, at which point that comment becomes more of a "they aren't even very good at what they want to be good at".

Like from my pov, the top of the corporate world doesn't just not care about those things but is actively trying to destroy them because they think they'll do better in a world where none of those things are as they currently are.