They're not ignoring performance, they're ignoring experience on old machines or hardware outside of top tier. Part of it is laziness for sure but part of it is, I believe, intentional to push the refresh cycle as short as possible. I know people who count down the days to their 2 year phone upgrade just on the off chance the next update might slow their phone down a bit. Not even that they upgrade as soon as the phone gets slow - they proactively upgrade to prevent it from ever happening in the first place, even for a day or two. This is what these companies want.
Bait and switch is something completely different.
If you started buying Evernote 10 or 15 years ago, and use it a lot, then Evernote gets acquired and the terms change, that's shitty but is not remotely a "bait and switch."
You bought a relationship with a service company that locked you in and sold you out. That's absolutely a bait and switch, just one of service instead of goods, because it's a SaaS company.
This is the real reason I'm tired of subscriptions. I don't even care about the "pay in perpetuity" problem in some cases, I just don't want the entity I chose to do business with to completely change.
The difference is not the company so much as the conviction of the person I am responding to. Although X has snagged names they want for their own use away from users
Being in nature, all alone is not social though, is it? Why are people so frustrated? What am I missing?
FWIW, it is dangerous to wear headphones in the city and listen to music, but you can always wear only one side. It is not comfortable, but that is how you remain safe without being an ass.
> Being in nature, all alone is not social though, is it? Why are people so frustrated? What am I missing?
Let's say I'm out in the woods, being non social. And someone comes up the path, playing music loudly. Now I'm being annoyed by people again, which is what I was trying to avoid by being out in the woods. And they're usually on a motorized vehicle, even though motorized vehicles are prohibited on the path.
I'm not trying to tell people how to live their lives. If they want to apprechiate nature in silence, cool. If they want to listen to music, cool ... but it'd be nice if they used headphones and it would be acceptable if they had a speaker at reasonable volume, but when I can hear them before I can see them, it's really not cool.
If they want to walk with a friend and chat, that's ok too.
If I'm out in the woods being non social I don't want to see you at all, it doesn't matter what you're doing. That's why I get off the path, the path is a social construct.
It is the imposition onto other people that makes it antisocial. The "I don't care or won't consider how this impacts other people, I am going to do whatever I want or whatever is easiest for me. If it bothers, upsets, or imposes on others, I don't care."
To keep with the example below, walking in the woods alone is "not social" but it's not at all "anti-social." Listening to music with headphones while walking through the woods is not anti-social. Blasting music on a portable speaker, not caring whether or not you're disturbing other people on that trail, is a pretty great example of anti-social behavior. As is having a speaker phone conversation on mass transit, or being visibly under the influence of drugs in public, or choosing to park illegally and block someone in because you'll "just be a minute" or any number of other things people do because it makes their lives 5% easier at the risk of making someone else's 10% harder.
Thank you for helping me clarify something. Your last example, jerking off in public, is not only a crime (as it should be) but is clearly antisocial behavior. That helped me realize that's what all the other shit is too, no pun intended. Using the restroom while you're talking to other people on the phone, or generally just doing anything that forces other people to listen to you use the restroom, is antisocial behavior and shouldn't be tolerated by anyone civilized.
"Minding your own business" when it comes to antisocial behavior is enabling when the correct response in shaming and ostracizing. It's not going to work with LBJ but it will probably work with Kevin from accounting.
What is the difference between "novel" and "novel to someone who hasn't consumed the entire corpus of training data, which is several orders of magnitude greater than any human being could consume?"
The difference is that when you do not know how a problem can be solved, but you know that this kind of problem has been solved countless times earlier by various programmers, you know that it is likely that if you ask an AI coding assistant to provide a solution, you will get an acceptable solution.
On the other hand, if the problem you have to solve has never been solved before at a quality satisfactory for your purpose, then it is futile to ask an AI coding assistant to provide a solution, because it is pretty certain that the proposed solution will be unacceptable (unless the AI succeeds to duplicate the performance of a monkey that would type a Shakespearean text by typing randomly).
You can sue for anything, whether or not you win is another matter. Civil and criminal court also don't have the same rules or standards for evidence and culpability. Whether or not actions were legal is not really what is being adjudicated there.
Depends what you mean by "the authorities." It's a demonstrable fact there are many small local PDs that don't give a shit about the first, fourth, or fifth amendments to name a few. That doesn't mean the Constitution "doesn't mean anything" in those places.
Well the first half of the sentence you're replying to is "a legal, valid and justified search." So if your question is "what recourse does an American have against a legal, valid and justified search" the answer is obviously and correctly "none."
You might be able to argue harassment or malicious prosecution if it's just one part of an ongoing campaign but even that is going to be hard to argue if everything is within the bounds of the law.
reply