my_hat_stinks

You are under no obligation to keep a product you don’t like for any reason, companies aren’t entitled to your money by default. You might have had a point if we were talking about some super rare item only one or two companies manufacture but this is about a HDD dock, you’ll probably find 5 different models with identical functionality just by checking your local electronics store.

I have never heard anyone claim returning something is “extreme” before. It’s so mild it should be one of the first options you consider, especially when you ordered online and didn’t get the chance to see the item before purchase. You shouldn’t get saddled with shit just because there’s some “feature” you hate which you weren’t aware of when you bought it. For that reason where I am you’d have a legal right to return almost any order within 14 days of receipt no questions asked, or longer if there’s a defect.

The fact you feel the need to hide significant aspects of yourself from your employer means that these social issues greatly affect you. So much so that I’m not convinced this isn’t a troll, “it’s fine as long as I don’t see it” is literally a homophobe trope.

You’re just not looking hard enough. This was the first hit when I searched.

I can kind of see their thought processes there. They’re sharing right-wing media so they’re likely already primed for those biases, plus that article title is intentionally misleading by suggesting asylum seekers will by default get priority over all other patients. It isn’t until the sixth paragraph that they admit it’s priority care for vulnerable people which is a group that happens to include asylum seekers and undocumented migrants (terms which this writer uses interchangeably, because of course they do). Very poor journalistic integrity even for a rag like this one, imo.

This type of article is intentionally misleading and written primarily to rile up people with poor media literacy. Making people angry makes it easier to manipulate them, and vulnerable groups are naturally less able to fight back so they’re an easy target.

In an ideal world after being challenged they would have reevaluated the source and their beliefs. In practice very few people do that and they just get more entrenched instead. Especially if it’s someone anonymous online just telling them they’re wrong.

They were, but chose to remove the feature instead of complying.

You’re absolutely right, Google chose to inconvenience their users rather than make it simpler for the user to choose their service. This is what Google chose to do rather than comply with regulation to make the field fairer. Google did this. The article is a PR piece to shift blame from Google for yet another anti-user decision Google made.

Google is not the good guy.

That’s bullshit. You’re not absolved of all wrongdoing because you used a computer as a middle man.

Apple chose to implement AI for this purpose, they are responsible for all output.

Lucky you, you must have grown up very middle-class. The cops in the UK are just as shitty as they are elsewhere.

As a kid I was walking a friend home when some cunt came up behind us and attacked me, busted my nose open then ran away. The cops must have waited at least a week to follow up, by which time they couldn’t do anything because I didn’t have a good enough way to identify the attacker.

Some years later I’m delivering newspapers, there’s one particular street where I always get harassed in some way. It escalates until one day I’m literally jumped by three fully grown adults, absolute scum attacking a kid on the street. I call the cops as soon as possible afterwards and they actually show up, but as I’m sitting crying in the back of their car they strongly encourage me to drop it, some excuse about how they’ll all deny it so it’s not worth investigating. I’m young and naive so I listen to them, but I’ve regretted that ever since.

Why bother? They’re safe at room temperature unless they’ve already been refrigerated, might as well use that fridge space for some that actually benefits from the cold.

At room temperature they’re good for a month or two. If you want long term storage you might as well prep and freeze them which will last you about a year, or there’s a ton of other long-term preservation techniques.

Just right click a link, it’s the option directly under copy link.

The T being added in is what? Maybe fifteen years old?

This didn’t sound right to me, I’m sure I heard LGBT more than 15 years ago, so I looked it up. According to Wikipedia LGBT was first used around 1988 but OED says 1992, other sources say it became widespread in either the 90s or 00s (varies by source). So 15 is a lower bound for widespread usage but I don’t think we can get much more specific than “15 to 35 years ago”.

If you’re pressing a button and want to cancel you can pretty much universally just move off the button before releasing the press and it won’t trigger the action. Works 99% of the time with a mouse, almost as often with a touch interface. Some custom-coded buttons will action on start press (not great imo) and some buttons do some other action on a long press, but if you’re holding it and nothing else has happened just dragging off is safe enough.

I did already back up the claim with a source, but okay:

US: Senior 128k USD, mid-level 94k USD
CH: Senior 118k CHF (~139k USD), mid-level 95k CHF (~112k USD)
DE: Senior 72k EUR (~80k USD), mid-level 58k EUR (~65k USD)
NL: Senior 69k EUR (~77k USD), mid-level 52k EUR (~58k USD)

Yes, US and Switzerland are outliers.

100k USD per engineer assumes they’re exclusively hiring from US and Switzerland, that’s not a general “developed country” thing. US is an outlier.

A little ham-fisted, sure, but if you think it’s irrelevant you evidently didn’t take any time to actually think about it (you did also reply instantly, so I’ll take that over you lacking reading comprehension).

I’ll simplify.

Digital piracy is illegal copying of unlicenced content.
Alice creates content.
Alice licences the content to Bob.
Bob decides to distribute the content with advertisements from Charlie.
You download the content.
Charlie does not pay Bob.
You did not breach any licences.
You did not pirate the content.

And just to further clarify, Alice is the person who made a video, Bob is Youtube, Charlie is an advertiser. Your argument is not an ad is piracy if “the advertisement company [hasn’t] paid the content creator.” The advertiser pays the distribution company, and the relationship between those two companies is irrelevant. The advertiser failing to pay does not retroactively turn you into a pirate.

The whole argument is pointless in the first place, it’s irrelevant whether or not you consider ad blocking to be technically piracy. A sensible adblock argument would be around the ethics of manipulation versus payment, or security versus whatever it is advertisers want. Arguing semantics doesn’t matter.

This is nonsense. Your argument is that you’re a pirate if one corporation with no relation to the content fails to pay a corporation which distributes but does not own the content. If you watch an ad then the advertising company refuses to pay you do not suddenly become a pirate.

If a struggling McDonald’s franchise fails to pay some franchisee fee that does not mean you pirated your big mac.

You’re being downvotes because it’s irrelevant and you’re claiming a feature that also exists in Firefox is the reason your preferred browser is better. It makes no sense.

There was an experiment once where it was determined that a frog with it’s brain removed wouldn’t jump out of slowly heated water but would reflexively jump if placed into already hot water, leading to a myth that a frog won’t leave boiling water if heated gradually enough.

Idioms around frog boiling generally means to make changes slowly and gradually enough that there is minimal reaction from affected parties.

I’m not sure I follow that analogy, if you get a ride to a hospital you don’t expect it to lock off all other destinations. What happens in the hospital is irrelevant.

From reading the article, this is more like if you walk into a hotel and they burn down your house so you have no choice but to stay. I suppose in theory you could argue in very bad faith that this is a problem with the house since it’s the house that burned, but in reality the problem is the fact they’re the ones who started the fire.