atrielienz

What does terrorism curry taste like?

Yes. But it is likely that the seller made such upgrades based on the spec sheet provided by the company on question (either Best Buy or the manufacturer) and in either case someone is liable for that spec sheet being wrong and it promoting the purchase of said laptop.

It's a bailout for life. It's use bailing out every year for the rest of time. It's still a bailout but it's not a one time thing.

Lol, no. We don't want to use our tax payer dollars to fund your failing tech.

We don't even have government healthcare for all but you want us to pay for this? Absolutely not.

I'll fully admit that the scenario you experienced is probable, given what's in the article.

But the main issue is that Best Buy sell a configuration of this laptop with 64GB of RAM and this fix openly contradicts that such a configuration is possible.

On top of that they "repaired this laptop" by removing part of the product the consumer paid for. If I had a repairman come look at my washing machine and they removed the extra rinse feature because that was causing it to flood but that feature was a stock feature, I would be pissed and litigious.

The fact that they didn't actually inform the customer is also bogus.

It appears to be a bizarre episode where Best Buy ‘repaired’ an under-warranty laptop by simply removing one of its SODIMMs, testing it worked reliably, and then sent it back to the customer with half the memory it originally shipped with installed, confusion possibly caused by a purchase made from a third-party seller.

I wasn't buying books from Amazon. I'm not gonna start now. Certainly not going to start buying AI slop "books".

Google has had a feature variant of this since at least 2014. Back when Google Now was a thing (before LLM's took off) there was a significant outcry about privacy because Google was scraping your emails to tell you when your packages shipped and when they would be delivered, to remind you when your flight was and what time you needed to leave for the airport and if your gate changed etc.

The thing that bothers me about this is, at that point it could be a opt in thing (on the email providers side), and it shouldn't be up to Amazon to use "customer protection" as a reason to enshittify their services so that they can continue to be anti-competitive.

Twitch doesn't have donations built into their platform (but you can absolutely donate bits which can be converted into cash). 5% is a me questioning the amount they take from donations of Bits, that's why there's question mark next to it. I don't remember the exact amount but I do know that it's less than YouTube, and that YouTube takes approximately 30%. I was hoping someone would correct me if I was wrong.

To purchase bits Twitch takes a cut. But when you donate bits to a streamer thats not the same as charging the customer who purchased the bits 30%.

Additionally though, some streamers use Kofi or other platforms like stream elements to get donations from their viewers, so there's that too.

I don't like this version.

Just shovel this straight into the graveyard, Google. And take the Chromebook with it.

The pay. They make more (especially on a donation model) because they get to keep more of what people donate to them. YouTube takes like 30%, and I think Twitch is lower (5%?).

I hear that the discoverability is terrible on Twitch but I'm not a streamer, so what do I know.

YouTube music better not be on that list. I have problems with it adding generated music to radio stations all the time (stuff that's unlabeled but that I know is AI from lists I've seen floating around the internet). I went through one ai "artists" whole catalog and downvoted every song they made and still sometimes I catch them slipping.

Tidal, Qobuz, Bandcamp, and Deezer are the ones if recommend.