>>*= I do not like Garmin, I think they're a fraudulent company systematically breaching consumer rights and I'm looking for alternatives. Already converted multiple people to Coros.
Slightly off the main topic, but I can strongly second that recommendation for Coros gear!
No relation other than a very happy Coros user (Pace Pro). They make an excellent series of sport & health monitoring watches and bike gear, best GPS I've ever seen producing the most accurate run/bike tracks I've ever seen (using 5 GNSS systems: GPS, Galileo, QZSS, etc.), very reasonable pricing compared to the competition, continuous useful updates, and just a great overall approach to health and technology.
The whole value proposition for the bank having a customer service line is to RESOLVE exceptions.
Yes, perhaps the first-line customer service should stick with the policy. If they cannot handle the situation (either to lack of knowledge or authority), the first line reps should ALSO FIND and ESCALATE the exceptions to a rep who DOES have the knowledge and authority to resolve the problem
When a company does not do that, they demonstrate that, despite all their marketing statements that they care about and value their customers, they, in fact NEITHER give a fck about nor value their customers.
>>they must have some technical advisors who can explain to them that the solutions they propose will not work
You are assuming good faith on the part of those legislators.
That is an error.
There is no good faith to be had and they could not care less about physical restrictions, incompatibilities, or impossibilities.
Their goal is to maximize their power and minimize or eliminate people's power, regardless of whether it is legitimate or desired by the people they claim to represent.
You would be more productive summoning the ghost of Richard Feynman to explain quantum physics to a dung beetle than to have a network expert attempt to enlighten those pseudo-legislators.
It is also literally insanely hostile for Waymo to respond like this.
The parent company, Alphabet, is valued over four trillion dollars.
The proper response would have been: "oh, terribly sorry for the inconvenience, we'll immediately turn it around, wait there".
If that was somehow actually possible, the next response should have been: "Oh, sorry that is impossible because of [actual reason X], we are terribly sorry for the inconvenience, where are you going to be staying, we'll immediately pack and ship it all to you FedEx".
Instead, they do this petty crap.
I'm no lawyer, but as soon as someone takes off with my stuff, that sounds like theft. Sure, I willingly put it in the trunk, but it was on a contract that they would deliver me and my luggage to the destination. Refusing to allow me to retrieve it, then requiring me to come get it is just outrageous.
At the very least, instead of offering the rider two rides to come fetch his stuff that they drove off with, would be to deliver it to his home at a time convenient to him.
This tells me the company is run by a bunch of greedy losers. Not anyone with whom I might want to associate or do business.
But they certainly have lawyers. No one feeding on this outrage bait seems to see the actual problem: If there's a mechanical or electrical problem that's preventing the trunk from opening, sending the car back to you won't fix that. As for delivering his luggage, I'm sure there are other liabilities they'd be exposing themselves to if they did that. Giving him a free trip to pick it up is the best option they had.
>> If there's a mechanical or electrical problem that's preventing the trunk from opening, sending the car back to you won't fix that.
Fair enough. If there was, they already blew it. The proper response then was to say: "We apologize, there is some mechanical or electrical problem that prevented the trunk from opening, we parked the car and failed to fix it remotely, so we must bring it back to the depot. How can we best arrange to get your luggage to you?"
>>Giving him a free trip to pick it up is the best option they had.
No, they have many options to deliver his luggage.
>> I'm sure there are other liabilities they'd be exposing themselves to if they did that.
If so, this is a problem solved more than a half-century ago by the airlines. And there is no more liability than them holding onto it.
The standard airline practice has been as long as I can remember, if they can't get it to you at the airport within two hours, they will drive it to you wherever you are at your destination or home. I've had, or watched friends on the same trip have, lost luggage delivered multiple times across multiple decades, sometimes a half-hour drive from the airport, and sometimes 3+hour drives up into the mountains to deliver it. Across multiple countries.
Waymo could use any of the airline luggage services, FedEx, a courier, or multiple other options.
This was straight-up, zero question, Waymo's fault. Waymo/Alphabet has sufficient assets even cash on hand that hiring a premium white-glove concierge service to personally deliver it on a private jet would not even show up as a rounding error in their budget or accounting. Not that such a service is necessary, but it is obviously possible without question.
Moreover, the difference in publicity between what they did and hiring such a service would be worth far more than the service. Instead of multiple articles about how they basically told the customer "FU, it's your problem, take your time to fix it" and multiple discussions damaging their reputation, there could be the opposite, we'd be discussion how "They had this edge-case problem, and look how they went to make it right for the guy; we can trust them". Even if they spent $50k on white-glove private jet service, it would buy them 10X that marketing value.
> I'm no lawyer, but as soon as someone takes off with my stuff, that sounds like theft.
I expect it's not theft. In England the intent requirement is famously "permanently to deprive" and so any situation where you're getting it back isn't theft. Doubtless the US has slightly different rules but I don't think that'll be theft.
In England, can I take someone's belongings and extort them to pay for "shipping and handling" fees or compel them to go out of their way to some risky nondescript location to pick it up? Wonder what the crime in this case if it's "not theft".
That would probably be a Blackmail offence, the intent requirement is about gain (to you) or loss (to the other party) and there's a bunch of Reasonableness invocations because it depends whether the prosecutor can make out that a Reasonable person should know they aren't entitled to ask that you do this to get your property back, as of course one can gain (or the other party may lose) in a reasonable transaction.
For example I once left a laptop on a train when travelling to my mother's house for Xmas. At the time my mother still lived where I grew up, at the edge of Metro-land, and so of course most people on that train wouldn't steal a laptop, they probably earn more than the laptop was worth in a day's work. But I stepped off the train with my other belongings, realised as I walked away and it's too late. The train operating company is under no obligation to like, stop the train and bring back my laptop right? It's unfortunate, but it's not on purpose. A week later I picked it up from their main hub. Their behaviour was entirely reasonable.
If you're thinking that this rule about theft means some crimes aren't theft then yeah, the most notable example in English culture is the crime of "joyriding" which is when you take somebody's car and you drive that around for a while and then you just get out and run off. That's not theft because, as we saw, no intent permanently to deprive (because it destroys evidence like fingerprints some joyriders might torch the car, but that would be intent permanently to deprive). So the crime of "Taking Without Owner's Consent" or TWOC was invented for cars and there's a fun rabbit hole you can disappear down as crooks take like boats and other things and the exact wording of that law is interpreted by courts as to whether it's TWOC if you took a bicycle, or a rowboat, or...
The U.S. has very different rules. Just yesterday there was an incident in my town where a couple of guys drove a car out of a parking lot, then later drove it back to the parking lot where they were apprehended and arrested for theft.
If this is some kind of attempt to excuse human massive carbon emissions by mis-attributing warming to a broader geological or astro-pysical phenomenon, it completely ignores the insane RATE of warming.
The rate of warming in the last century is orders of magnitude faster than any natural geological warming trend. It is the mother of all hockey-stick graphs, conveniently drawn for us by Randall Munroe [0]. Note: you will need too scroll a lot.
So much for vibe-coding apps for personal or niche use (e.g., club/sport/charity, etc.).
Or will Google carve out an exception for Gemini/Antigravity/CoLab/AI Studio/Whatever? At least a usable exception, but smells a lot like antitrust lock-in if you prefer Claude/ChatGPT/DeepSeek/Whatever.
The article has a whole page about how, while it is still technically possible, it is a massively messy, deliberately intimidating, 9-step process that takes 24 hours.
That looks to me like an entirely unusable and unacceptable situation if you want to just vibe-code up a little app to track your bike club rides or something.
The 15 minute cycle of: Looks good -» save-» install -» start debugging, oops, I've got to fix that -» repeat
Becomes a 25-hour cycle involving:
Looks good -» save-» do five steps -» reboot -» wait 24 hours -» 3 more confirmation steps -» install -» start debugging, oops, I've got to fix that -» repeat
And then, now that you're determined and spend all week working through a few refinement cycles and have the app you want, you can just give it to everyone at the meetup, THEY all need to get it, do the nonsense, wait 24 hours, do more nonsense, and then finally your bike group can track their rides.
You seriously think that is acceptable?
Being able to technically do something is a very different thing than being able to practically do something.
Now, you run it for a while, realize you need to make changes, make those changes and now have a v1.01 to use. Do you know it doesn't require a new install? It likely does, since you are not using the Google Play update mechanism.
And even if they do "allow" automatic updates of the same app without the delay, you really find this delay acceptable?
I'd be ok with a free self-certification of your own app, but forcing a 24hr delay, nope
This is way worse than "you're holding it wrong" — this is bad functionality by intentional design
The general rule for email, text, and all other communications I've heard is: "Don't write anything that you wouldn't be comfortable seeing on the front page of the New York times."
Heard that first from a US mil commander who once ran for a minor political office like state rep.
I’ve also been told to preface all of my written communications with “dear lawyers and the FDA” at a job. Not that we did anything illegal, but sometimes you catch yourself writing statements that would be really easy to misconstrue.
Do you need to calibrate it to be able to repeat it, and does that calibration change if you are at a different altitude and in different conditions, such as humidity?
Does merely changing altitude (or ambient pressure) change voice enough to be considered different by a recognition or synthesizing system?
Right To Repair is a fundamental of freedom from oligarchy.
It is literally the question of who owns the things we buy. Or, are we forever just de-facto renting those things, while sending all the data to the corporate overlords?
It seems obscure, but is a key element of freedom and democracy.
If I am renting a thing I expect free repairs forever and they should expect to hear from me any time my rental devices is not doing what I expect it to do. If that is not included in the rental fee then I need not use that device and they should expect it returned covered in animal feces.
Another, probably better method that avoids SCOTUS to overturn Citizen's United is going back to the source — the fact that states create corporations and specify their allowed activities — and amending state corporate-charter law to strip corporations of the enumerated power to spend on elections or ballot issues. AFAIK, bills are already in progress in Montana, Maine, and I just heard about one in Hawaii too.
In Citizens United Kennedy held that government can't regulate speech by identity, not just individual or corporate, but by any form of organization. A state cannot evade that decision by revising the form.
It was already considered unconstitutional to legislate based on the content of speech. Citizens United added the identity of the speaker.
the worth of speech “does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual” -- https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/
Yes, and it seems part of the work-around here is not that it is restricting the ability of the corporations to speak, they can say what they want, but by limiting the ability to spend money, especially money that is invisible. It seems to be more of a transparency act than a constraint [0].
Even this would be helpful as it would prevent corporations from saying one thing while they spend millions to elect candidates to do the opposite. At least now their activities would be public and they could be called out.
From the article:
>> The key, Mangan said, is about transparency. He said the current system allows private corporations to be established and collect money, but to keep those donors and the amounts hidden from public view. Those corporations, which can consist with as few as one donor, can give to candidates and causes under the corporation name, although the people supporting that corporation and the amount of money donated are unknown, leading to the term “dark money.”
>> The change in Montana law would simply not grant the corporations the power to give to candidates or causes, but would allow individuals to give, but those donations would be tracked.
Slightly off the main topic, but I can strongly second that recommendation for Coros gear!
No relation other than a very happy Coros user (Pace Pro). They make an excellent series of sport & health monitoring watches and bike gear, best GPS I've ever seen producing the most accurate run/bike tracks I've ever seen (using 5 GNSS systems: GPS, Galileo, QZSS, etc.), very reasonable pricing compared to the competition, continuous useful updates, and just a great overall approach to health and technology.
reply