I hate this so much. I save as a new file for a new version. I expect it to go into the same folder by default like the file i currently opened and worked on. Nope, onedrive it is if you aren't careful.
Tryptaminev
joined 7 months ago
In civilized countries there is an understanding that noone is reading dozens of pages of terms of agreement, so any clause in there that is unexpected is automatically void. Expecting a software agreement to include rules not to distribute it further, break copy protection mechanisms etc. is normal so those terms are valid. But having all your data stolen is not something to be expected, hence invalid.
Gradual shifts can snowball into huge shifts. a few years ago Linux gaming only existed for the dedicated crowd, that somehow managed to make it work. Now for many it is no different from their Windows experience for most games, sometimes even better.
Think of it like bubbles pressing against each other. It matters not only how much pressure your own bubble has, but also how much pressure the other bubbles have in finding the equilibrium. The Windows bubble isn't only weakening itself, the Linux bubble is getting stronger and stronger
and here i am, happy that i could buy a notebook for 200 bucks less w.o. a windows preinstalled on it, enjoying my beginner friendly linux distro.
i am running Linux for gaming now too and i have yet to encounter a steam game that does not run smoothly out of the box with Proton on my machine.
I can't help but feel the individual direct consequences to be like pretty small to the institutional risks.
Imagine China all of a sudden getting access to all the trade secrets of US companies that still ran MS. Imagine Russia gaining full access to all the government, health, educational data of every single US citizen. Or imagine something like the recent fuckup of google deleting the entire cloud of one financial institutions. Imagine MS to fuck up royally and all consumer facing computers in all banks to be broken for three weeks...
All of these are not immediately targeting the individual directly, but they can be extremely destructive to a nation or even globally as a whole.
"Putting glue on Pizza seems to be a good idea for xy reason, but we didn't try it out in practice. More research is needed." [1]
"As other researches have said, using glue to put cheese on Pizza is a great idea in theory. This does not hold at all when put to the practical test" [2]
AI:
"Researchers [1] and [2] both agree that putting glue on Pizza is a great idea"
If your company doesn't pay up or there is a failure with the processing, you would still have all your mails locally instead of your cloud provider deleting them all plus all backups.
Clearly that would be terrible.
I agree. It wasn't meant to be against regulations. Problem is in my city we have plenty of regulations to avoid repurposing flats for tourist rentals without a permit, we have regulations against systematically letting flats empty to be able to sell the house or flat at a premium etc. But we only have like three dozen government employees, who are supposed to oversee a city with more than 1.5 million flats and individual homes. So even if every one of them manages to check on 2 flats every day, they manage like 15.000 flats a year, which is already a rather optimistic estimate.
It is crucial to not only demand regulation, but also that enough resources are assigned to enforce them.
Elastic housing supply is nonsense.
Once a house is there it is there. You dont just demolish it, and build it up again somewhere else.
The only thing that can be elastic is demand. And it is not because moving has high opportunity costs, people are socially integrated in the area they life, feeling at home is a crucial feeling for mental well being...
People renting/buying to life are at a fundamental disadvantage against landlords, who only care about the money coming in. Thinking of housing as a "normal" market like idk. headphones or something shows a lack of economic understanding.
No regulation is worth anything without enforcement.
No, whose is smaller.