Why is WhatsApp so ubiquitous everywhere BUT North America?
tiramichu @ tiramichu @lemm.ee Posts 0Comments 545Joined 2 yr. ago
tiramichu @ tiramichu @lemm.ee
Posts
0
Comments
545
Joined
2 yr. ago
Also paid anti-virus.
Which was sometimes frustrating, but when they are funny and good bugs it's amazing they can't be patched out.
There's a reason so many speedruns on older consoles use the Japanese cartridges, because those versions came out first and have exploitable glitches which the western release later fixed.
Bugs at that time were almost never totally game-breaking either, fortunately. That could be a nightmare recall for the publisher, and so the final builds were tested more intensively than games now.
Just FYI, asklemmy is intended for interesting and open-ended subjects of discussion, not for single-answer support problems like this, so I won't be surprised if this thread is deleted.
That said, I feel your machine should be compatible with opencore. Its running Yosemite 10.10 which meets the minimum.
When checking your model make sure you are looking in the right place - press cmd+space, type "system information" and go there. Should be an entry like "MacBookPro[number],[number]" - not the model number, but the device identifier.
I personally have an older Macbook pro which is running Linux, so that's also a decent option if you want to do it. Pop!_OS is a very mac-like distro that supports pretty much all mac hardware out of the box.
Good luck!
The article talks about factors like type of game and advancements in technology, but doesn't mention what is surely a big factor - the age of their audience.
My personal intuition is that 10 to 20 years is the sweet spot because those people who played the original as a teenager will now be in their 20s and 30s, where they have disposable income and plenty of desire to spend it on reliving those happy childhood memories.
If you wait too long for a remake, the market will shrink again because those original players will be more likely to have family, other commitments, and less time to game.
As someone who now prefers digital, but grew up with mostly analog, I think I can understand what your teacher was trying to say, and it's really a difference in how the brain is interpreting time itself.
When your internal mental state of time is represented in numbers, then analog clocks feel awkward and clunky, because to use them you have to look at the clock, think "okay the big hand is here, the little hand is there, so that's 7:45. School starts at 8, so 15 mins to school". It's like having to translate through a foreign language and then back to your own.
For people who use analog clocks almost exclusively, as I did in childhood, then your concept of time actually begins to become directly correlated to the position of the hands themselves. Not the numbers the hands are pointing at, but the shape the hands make on the clock face. I think what your elementary teacher was trying to say is that the clock itself becomes a direct physical representation of the 'size' of time.
Someone whose brain is working like that looks at an analog clock and immediately thinks "It's quarter to school" - without any numbers being involved at all. In fact you could completely remove all numbers and markings from the clock face, and the physical comprehension of time would still function equally as well for that person.
So yeah, I understand why analog is bad for people who don't like it, but I think I see the appeal for people who do.
Bold of them to assume the door-dasher can afford hospital
I love that a showdown to the death with a terrifying alien is described as "hard working" like it's a bad day at the office.
I'm pretty sure that a lot of these virus and malware scanners began as normal and well-intentioned businesses, and only later went bad.
I used to use Avast and AVG back in the day (like 10+ years ago) and they mostly just sat back and did what you'd expect, without being intrusive about it.
But of course the inevitable march of capitalism happens and they all start trying to make more and more money. Intimidating users with scare tactics. Aggressive pop-ups. Selling user data.
Wouldn't go near them these days with a shitty stick.
noodle meep meep meep meep moo
I think you are due for a re-watch! It's great when it's been a few years and you can enjoy some of the bits you forgot about.
The answer is in the movie. When explaining the Matrix to Neo, Morpheus says: "There are fields, endless fields, where human beings are no longer born, we are grown."
Doesn't specify the exact how, but it's strongly implied that it is through either cloning or artificial gestation.
From the thumbnail I thought I was looking at a chastity cage!
I wouldn't expect it's because there's a server call - I'm sure the developers are smart enough to have all the analytics and tracking be async in the background.
Instead it's likely because these days every aspect of the TV is implemented in software running on the TV's CPU. With pre-smart devices, changing inputs would just activate some discreet on-board electronics to switch the signal over with no latency. Now you have to wait for the processor to get around to it, and it's probably busy loading up a bunch of app launchers and other crap you don't need, and doing some fancy whoosh-in animations, all of which is just getting in the way of what you actually want.
My biggest problem is security updates.
The "x years of upgrades" model is okay when it's for an app, where you can just keep using it with the old feature set and no harm is done.
But Unraid isn't an app, it's a whole operating system.
With this new licensing model, over time we will see many people sticking with old versions because they dont want to pay to renew - and then what happens when critical security vulnerabilities are found?
The question was already asked on the Unraid forum thread, and the answer from them on whether they would provide security updates for non-latest versions was basically "we don't know" - due to how much effort they would need to spend to individually fix all those old versions, and the team size it would require.
It's going to be a nightmare.
Any user who cares about good security practice is effectively going to be forced to pay to renew, because the alternative will be to leave yourself potentially vulnerable.
I agree that's 100% what happened in this specific case. The customer had absolutely no reason to suspect the information they were given was bad, and the airline should have honoured the deal.
A top-level comment on the post was also mine, by the way, in which I expressed the same and said "Shame on Air Canada for even fighting it."
Air Canada were completely and utterly wrong in this case - but I haven't been talking about this case! At least, I wasn't intending to!
If it seemed that way I can understand now why people were so vehemently against me.
My comments in this chain have all actually been trying to discuss how to determine, in the general case, which party is "in the right" when things like this happen.
There are cases like this Air Canada one where the customer is obviously right. We can also imagine hypothetical cases where I personally believe the customer would be in the wrong - for example if the customer intentionally exploited a flaw in the system to game a $1 flight - which is again obviously not what happened here, it's just an example for the sake of argument.
My fundamental point at the start of this comment chain was that I don't actually think we need any new mechanisms to work this out, because the existing mechanisms we already have in place to determine who is right between a company and a customer all still apply and work exactly the same regardless of whether it is AI or not AI.
And that mechanism is, fundamentally, that the customer should generally be considered right as long as they have acted in good faith.
That's why I'm very pleased with the ruling that Air Canada were wrong here and they cannot dodge their responsibilities by blaming the AI.
I'm honestly glad I can put the stress of this days-long comment chain behind me, since it seems we weren't even arguing about the same thing this whole time!
Apologies if my comments appeared to be moving the goalposts. I am not trying to talk about morality in a wider sense. If I was, this would be a whole different argument because I believe that corporations are generally unethical as all hell, and consumers are usually within their moral right to exploit them as hard as possible, because that barely even scratches how badly companies exploit their customers or damage wider society. But this is - as you point out - not about that.
The aspect of morality I was interested in from the perspective of defining law is the very restricted aspect of whether the customer is acting in bad faith, knowing that they are getting a too-good-to-be-true deal, or whether they believe the offer made is legitimate.
You ask what makes a human customer service representative so special, in comparison to a bot, and my answer there is simply that they are human
Remember that my argument here, and the deciding factor, is specifically about whether or not the customer believes the price they are being offered is genuine.
Humans agents are special in that regard because they have a huge amount of credibility in reassuring and confirming with the other person that the offer is genuine and not a mistake. They strongly reinforce the belief of an offer being legitimate.
The law itself already (at least in the UK) distinguishes between prices presented (e.g. on a web page or the price on a shelf sticker) and direct agreements made with a person, recognising that mistakes are possible and giving the human ultimate authority.
Really, this entire argument comes down to answering this: Should information given by a chatbot be considered to have the same authority and weight as information given by a person?
My personal argument has been: "Yes, if it reasonably appears to the recipient as genuine, but no if the recipient might have probable cause to suspect it is a mistake, knowing the information was provided by a computer system and that mistakes are possible."
For most people in this thread however, it seems (based on my downvotes) their feeling has been "Yes, it has the same authority always and absolutely"
I can accept that I'm very much outvoted on this one, but I hope you can appreciate my arguments.
This is a Bond villain lair if I ever saw one.
From my own experience as someone living in the UK, probably two reasons, for those countries at least.
In the 2000s, most people who liked to message a lot in the UK (generally young people and teens) were on pay-as-you-go 'top up' plans where each individual message had a cost. SMS messages cost anything from 1 pence to 5 pence, and I remember on my plan, MMS (picture messages) cost a ridiculous 12 pence each! It was expensive. Most people (and especially younger people) had Android phones, and so as soon as a credible Internet-based messenger became popular, people flocked in droves to jump to it. It was WhatsApp in the UK which won that race, and it remains the de-facto messenger to this day.
Things were different in the US. The iPhone got a huge early foothold in sales, and iMessage became dominant simply by being first to market and gaining critical mass. It was also more common (versus the UK) for people to be on contract plans that had SMS and MMS included as part of the plan cost, so even for people who didn't have iPhones there was less financial incentive to dump those technologies, and SMS remained prevalent.