19.7% of children and adolescents are obese in the United States[0]. These are definitely forces outside their control during critical years of development. It's like blaming someone for being impoverished when they grew up in an impoverished atmosphere (also a popular view in the States).
Sure they could beat the odds on either issue when get older, but it's tough when you live in a system that works against you. It's good to say individuals should hold themselves accountable and not give up in the face of adversity, but from a macro-level it doesn't help fix the problem. I'd argue the your fault / deal with it attitude on these trends make those problems worse for a population.
That's very cool... but it is for a different reason ("Aspirin disrupts the platelets and removes their influence over the T-cells so they can hunt out the cancer.") I am curious whether aspirin also helps in another way: by reducing inflammation.
When I first got my plan / phone on the US east coast I was given the option to pick a number from anywhere in the country. I went with a fulsom county CA number and its come in really handy. I know to screen incoming calls that have the fulsom area code (always spam) and numbers that have the local area code where I live are actually legit.
I feel like this is the fake reason given to try to hide the obvious reason: automatic updates are a power move that allows companies to retain control of products they've sold.
Yep. And even aside from security, its a nightmare needing to maintain multiple versions of a product. "Oh, our software is crashing? What version do you have? Oh, 4.5. Well, update 4.7 from 2 years ago may fix your problem, but we've also released major versions 5 and 6 since then - no, I'm not trying to upsell you ma'am. We'll pull up the code from that version and see if we can figure out the problem."
Having evergreen software that just keeps itself up to date is marvellous. The Google Docs team only needs to care about the current version of their software. There are no documents saved with an old version. There's no need to backport fixes to old versions, and no QA teams that need to test backported security updates on 10 year old hardware.
Its just a shame about, y'know, the aptly named crowdstrike.
Fine. But Google can mass-migrate all of them to a new format any time they want. They don’t have the situation you used to have with Word, where you needed to remember to Save As Word 2001 format or whatever so you could open the file on another computer. (And if you forgot, the file was unreadable). It was a huge pain.
Yes it is better than the Word situation, but no it isn't not caring. There do exist old format docs and Google does have to care - to make that migration.
Yes, they have to migrate once. But they don’t need to maintain 8 different versions of Word going back a decade, make sure all security patches get back ported (without breaking anything along the way), and make all of them are in some way cross compatible despite having differing feature sets.
If google makes a new storage format they have to migrate old Google docs. But that’s a once off thing. When migrations happen, documents are only ever moved from old file formats to new file formats. With word, I need to be able to open an old document with the new version of word, make changes then re-save it so it’s compatible with the old version of word again. Then edit it on an old version of word and go back and forth.
I’m sure the Google engineers are very busy. But by making Docs be evergreen software, they have a much easier problem to solve when it comes to this stuff. Nobody uses the version of Google docs from 6 months ago. You can’t. And that simplifies a lot of things.
They have to migrate each time they change the format, surely. Either that or maintain converters going back decades, to apply the right one when a document is opened.
> but they don’t need to maintain 8 different versions of Word going back a decade, make sure all security patches get back ported
Nor does Microsoft for Word.
> With word, I need to be able to open an old document with the new version of word, make changes then re-save it so it’s compatible with the old version of word again.
You don't have to, unless you want the benefit of that.
And Google Docs offers the same.
> Nobody uses the version of Google docs from 6 months ago. You can’t. And that simplifies a lot of things.
Well, I'd love to use the version of Gmail web from 6 months ago. Because three months ago Google broke email address input such that it no longer accesses the contacts list and I have to type/paste each address in full.
That's a price we pay for things being "simpler" for a software provider than can and does change the software I am using without telling me let alone giving me the choice.
Not to mention the change that took away a large chunk of my working screen space for an advert telling me to switch to the app version, despite have the latest version of Google's own Chrome. An advert I cannot remove despite having got the message 1000 times. Pure extortion. Simplification is no excuse.
It used to be the original reason why automatic updates were accepted and it was valid.
But since then it has been abused for all sorts of things that really are nothing more than consolidation of power, including an entire shift in mentality of what "ownership" even means: Tech companies today seem to think it's the standard that they keep effective ownership of a product for its entire life cycle, no matter how much money a customer has paid for it, and no matter deeply the customer relies on that product.
(Politicians mostly seem fine with that development or even encourage it)
I agree that an average nontechnical person can't be expected to keep track of all the security patches manually to keep their devices secure.
What I would expect would be an easy way to opt-out of automatic updates if you know what you're doing. The fact that many companies go to absurd lengths to stop you from e.g. replacing the firmware or unlocking the bootloader, even if you're the owner of the device is a pretty clear sign to me they are not doing this out of a desire to protect the end-user.
Also, I'm a bit baffled that there is no vetting at all of the contents of updates. A vendor can write absolutely whatever they want into a patch for some product of theirs and arbitrarily change the behaviour of software and devices that belong to other people. As a society, we're just trusting the tech companies to do the right thing.
I think a better system would be if updates would at the very least have to be vetted by an independent third party before being applied and a device would only accept an update if it's signed by the vendor and the third-party.
The third-party cold then do the following things:
- run tests and check for bugs
- check for malicious and rights-infringing changes deliberately introduced by the vendor (e.g. taking away functionality that was there at time of purchase)
- publicly document the contents of an update, beyond "bug fixes and performance improvements".
What you're describing is what Linux distro maintainers do: Debian maintainers check the changes of different software repos, look at new options and decide if anything should be disabled in the official Debian release, and compile and upload the packages.
The problem you are complaining about here is the weakening of labor and consumer organizations vis a vis capital or ownership organizations. The software must be updated frequently due to our lack of skill in writing secure software. Whether all the corporations will take advantage of everything under the sun to reduce the power the purchasers and producers of these products have is a political and legal questions. If only the corporations are politically involved then only they will have their voice heard by the legislatures.
no reason why both can't be true — the security is overall better, and companies are happy to invest in advancing this paradigm because it gives them more control
incentive can and does undermine the stated goal. what if the government decided to take control of everyone's investment portfolio to prevent the market doing bad things? or an airplane manufacturer gets takes control of its own safety certification process because obviously its in their best interest that their planes are safe? imposed curfew, everyone has to be inside their homes while its dark outside because most violent crimes occur at night?
I'm not sure driver mistaking the pedals is a fair starting point with the amount of software involved now a days. Telsas push updates over the air that affect these sorts of things. In this article[0] for example, it's suggested a once optional feature that is now mandatory can be used for one pedal driving.
Of the cases where 'pedal mistake' doesn't explain it, self-interested, logical game theory suggests that a large portion are people who KNOW they accelerated manually and are seeking to avoid liability. Of those even not deliberately seeking innocence, there is a portion still whose human memory has post-rationalized that the car was in fact responsible, because they would never..
One pedal driving is for braking by recharging your battery, I've never heard of it actually using the physical breaks. It wouldn't make sense since when there's no emergency, you want to minimize the use of physical breaks since the turn the mechanical energy into thermal energy, essentially wasting it.
Remember the issue of Toyota’s with unintended acceleration? That was 100% due to fat feet so this is indeed a very fair starting point. This has happened so so so many times without any technology involved. The tech may have changed but the human behind the wheel hasn’t.
The first major cause of unintended acceleration was found in March 2007, when an engineering analysis showed that unsecured all-weather mats had led to pedal entrapment and drivers accelerating up to 90 mph with decreased braking power...
...Early on, Toyota suggested that driver error was to blame, saying that some people may have hit the gas when they meant to hit the brake...
...This led to Toyota sending a letter to the owners of the affected car, a 2007 Lexus ES350, asking that they bring their cars in to switch out the all-weather mats...
...After this recall, Toyota decided to revise the internal design of their cars to ensure that there was "10 millimetres (0.39 in) between a fully depressed gas pedal and the floor," but decided to only implement the new designs upon the next "full model redesign", which wouldn't take place until 2010...
...In an attempt to hide these defects from investigators, Toyota switched to verbal communication on the defect rather than traceable forms of communication. As a result, many new cars were knowingly produced with the same floor mat issues that had been identified as being having the potential to cause SUA problems in association with the defective pedal design..."
That famous quote from Fight Club seems especially relevant here…
Reproduced below, for those who haven’t seen the film:
Narrator : [20:35] A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Woman on Plane : Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
Narrator : You wouldn't believe.
Woman on Plane : Which car company do you work for?
> The first major cause of unintended acceleration was found in March 2007, when an engineering analysis showed that unsecured all-weather mats had led to pedal entrapment and drivers accelerating up to 90 mph with decreased braking power...
That doesn't doesn't really align with all the people who were 100% sure they were stomping on the brake and the car was accelerating.
I think a very large portion of their "guilt" was due to being a non-Detroit/American company at a time when those companies where hurting. Everyone just loved to pile on with no evidence at all.
The exact same thing played out with the Audi 5000 in the 80's -- people hit the wrong pedal and lie. Until this issue is fixed, I would continue to suspect that first.
> Toyota Motor Corporation Admits to Misleading Consumers and U.S. Regulator About Safety Issues Related to Unintended Acceleration in Its Cars ... TOYOTA to pay a $1.2 billion financial penalty – the largest penalty of its kind ever imposed on an automotive company
Probably not with the Toyota given the model, but this can often be both a human error and bad design.
In some cases, "human error" is at least partly attributable to poor human factors engineering. It sometimes happens with SUVs and large trucks with large transmission wells that effectively move the pedals towards the driver side door. When in a panic situation, people will sometimes mistake the location of accelerator for the brake out of sheer muscle memory.
The problem with that is that I wouldn't put it past Tesla to update that software and/or the data even after a crash if the car can be reached to avoid liability.
Neither of those links provide any numbers or good reasons to think that Cuba and the US can be easily compared. So while I agree that the idea is attractive and plausible, it remains merely an idea. And it is an old one too, I remember reading somewhere that in ancient China doctors were paid while you were well but you stopped paying if you fell ill so it was in the doctor's interest to prevent you falling ill. I have no idea if the story is true but it does suggest that the idea is not new.
It seems like the way to go is get someone to inspect the store. Each item with a pricing violation is up to $25 for the first twenty items, up to $50 for each item after capped at a total $2000[0]. Successive inspections can become even more costly.
Sure they could beat the odds on either issue when get older, but it's tough when you live in a system that works against you. It's good to say individuals should hold themselves accountable and not give up in the face of adversity, but from a macro-level it doesn't help fix the problem. I'd argue the your fault / deal with it attitude on these trends make those problems worse for a population.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood-obesity-facts/childhoo...