Some of the obstacles really hit you when your working with different systems, if you connect the same systems then just mirror the config but when each end uses different terminology it can get confusing unless you know what you're doing. I don't think I'd agree that it's extremely difficult but it's nontrivial sometimes.
Turns out that is not as true as you would think in practice.. you can reduce the search space significantly because of known IPv6 prefixes, EUI-64, a MAC address database and trying a few additional likely addresses such as ::1 ::fffe etc
Would they be publicly resolvable? And even if they are, how would you find the name? Wouldn't a lot of these machines be internal infrastructure of various companies?
I feel the same way, but I worry that ISPs won't ever change unless they're forced to. I'm starting to wonder if Google should just stop accepting (or start delaying?) traffic to or from ISPs that allow spoofed traffic. I mean it doesn't feel hard to test.
On the one hand I already avoid Google because they're getting uncomfortably large, but on the other hand I feel like it's going to take a company of Google's size to take a stand, or regulatory changes, before anything will change for the better here.
It worked for improving the SSL situation and for distrusting bad CAs, didn't it? Non-rhetorical question, it feels like it did to me.
This is exactly why I don't bother with forums controlled by the company I wish to raise a grievance about. Just go air your complaint on Reddit or something they don't control, it's not worth your time complaining to their forums.
That's pretty disingenuous though, given that FB and Google both track you across the net whether you have an account with them or not.
Logging out of your account doesn't stop them or increase the difficulty of them tracking you, or associating that trail with you.
That's actively taking steps to block their tracking rather than just not using their service. And while technically, you can use uBlock Origin to block everything from Google, that would result in many webpages being broken.
You're also likely to be using Google's DNS (8.8.8.8) without knowing, because some piece of software decided to hardcode that DNS server.
And your friends have almost certainly already uploaded your data to Google's Android backup service and to WhatsApp's database.
> The Sansa line at one point had (or still has) the same audio chip as the iPod (Classic), is cheaper, and is super well reviewed. I think people interested in dedicated players have moved onto that.
This looks promising on the face of it but is missing a key killer-feature IMO. The reason I still use an iPod for my MP3s is for a specific feature in iTunes that I've not yet found elsewhere, I forget the name they use but I call them dynamic playlists.
Most of my playlists generate themselves based on DateAdded, LastPlayed, LastSkipped, Rating, Tags and other attributes. When I add a song I give it some tags and sync my iPod, and then it will over time and after a few syncs, end up in other playlists based on how often I play it and what rating I give it. It's a feature that I very much enjoy, and feels like a significant step up from manually managing playlists. I wish I had the same for my Movie library.
I've seriously been considering building my own gizmo with a Raspberry pi, an LCD screen and some scripts but that's rather unappealing aesthetically.
Has anyone got an equivalent to dynamic libraries + mp3 players working without iTunes? The crux seems to be that the mp3 player needs to keep a log of what's played and when and needs to support ratings, even if the player itself doesn't update the playlists until it's synced. I'm not even huge on sound quality or big on Apple products, it's just the features I like I can't find elsewhere.
MediaMonkey has a similar function for audio playlists. I have no idea how well this translates to mobile (or even if you CAN transfer it to mobile) -- but I know it works on PC for my MP3 library (which is stupidly huge)
Maybe they can reinvest some of that money and figure out how to not spam me for things I've already pre-ordered from Amazon.
Case in point, Super Mario Odyssey. Preordered from Amazon, and they've been sending me nonstop emails to try and sell me additional copies ever since.
At least their marketing emails tend to come from a different source from tracking notification emails so you can filter them with ease.
That doesn't sound like something that should be happening. Perhaps there is an error in the email targeting logic. I'd be happy to help get it looked into and see if it can be fixed.
If you'd like to take me up on my offer, please file a support case in the usual way to report this issue; then ping me at my work email address from the email address associated with your account to let me know you've done that. Ideally, explain what you did here in the support case, and provide the full email headers of the email that you expected not to receive (or at minimum, subject line and date). That's what will likely be needed to pinpoint the account and the problem. I'll keep an eye on it and do my best to ensure it's driven to resolution with the right people. We should expect follow-up and further communication to occur via the support case. I'll preemptively ask for patience since certain issues can take a bit to investigate.
Just unsubscribe from marketing emails. I receive zero marketing emails from Amazon, and I'm a prime member that orders fairly frequently. I do receive AWS product announcements, but I want those.
I've bought multiple copies of the same item from Amazon. Sometimes it's been groceries but not always.
I've bought books for myself then bought them again as gifts for someone else. I bet a lot of people who bought Switch games for themselves will buy more copies as holiday presents.
Certain products are purchased repeatedly: for example, anything consumable like paper towels, toilet paper, diapers. Certain other products are purchased multiple times, but with a delay in between purchases.
A final category of products are virtually never purchased multiple times except as gifts. Video games and other media most likely fall into this category, and targeting logic should understand that. I understand the OP's complaint.
I agree with your intention, but I worry about the consequences: One thing worse than a group of companies controlling credit ratings is one company having a monopoly on controlling credit ratings and being "too big to fail".
What exactly is the best case scenario here I wonder? More credit rating companies equals more competition but greater attack surface and chance of breach, but fewer companies approaches a monopoly situation which isn't good for consumers either. This feels like a lose-lose...
> What exactly is the best case scenario here I wonder?
Pass a law that (a) lets Equifax fail, thereby (i) sending a clear message while (ii) solidifying, in law, the industry's liability to consumers; and (b) prohibits existing credit rating agencies from purchasing Equifax's data, thereby priming the pump for a new entrant. Alternatively to (b), mandate a separation (Glass-Steagall style) between those who warehouse credit data and those who use it to calculate a credit score.
> What exactly is the best case scenario here I wonder?
It seems clear: a transition away from the economic and financial models of the industrial age, which Experian, TransUnion and Equifax - along with the banking cartels and various national reserve banks - represent.
Fortunately, that's happening; the best-case scenario seems inevitable.
I submit that, for example, the explosion in creativity surrounding blockchain tech is evidence that the model embodied by these entities is no longer relevant.
And that these sorts of developments are tantamount to entry into a different age (the "information age" is the typical vernacular) which has a different set of norms than the industrial age did.
and I think people in the Tech Bubble massively over state the importance of "the block chain" as some kind of savior when in reality one of 2 things will happen
1. The Banks and National Reserves will fold the technology into their operations making it apart of the current system. This process is already in the works. This will result in the same system we have today just backed by different technology, but will not lead to the end of Centralized Authority like the vision of block-chain supporters seem to have
2. The Technology will fizzle and die. Which seems unlikely at this point but it is still possible. Security concerns and other aspects still remain high....
However I very pessimistic that block chain will be what brings us to a different age, where these entities are no longer relevant
Outside of the Tech Bubble, there are very few people that even know what a block chain is.
How about we not let them declare bankruptcy and send them to corporate debter's prison instead: hold them accountable by garnishing future earnings until their debts are accounted for. Essentially let them continue operating but let them hang out in the pink sheets for a decade or so as punishment.
I know it's probably a rash idea full of a million flaws and unintended consequences, but sometimes bankruptcy is too lenient of a punishment. And this feels like one of those cases.
> How about we not let them declare bankruptcy and send them to corporate debter's prison instead: hold them accountable by garnishing future earnings until their debts are accounted for. Essentially let them continue operating but let them hang out in the pink sheets for a decade or so as punishment.
The purpose of bankruptcy is to determine how to proceed when a company's liabilities exceed its assets. The company had $10B in assets and $7B in liabilities, a fine added another $5B to their liabilities, now they're bankrupt. Not all creditors can be paid the amount they're owed. Bankruptcy laws exist to make sure what happens next is fair, e.g. each creditor gets 75c on the dollar instead of having the CEO pay all the debts owed to his brother's company first and leaving the other creditors with nothing.
In practice what usually happens in a case like that is that the company files for bankruptcy, sells all its assets --including its name -- to a new corporation that continues operating its business, and the proceeds from the sale are used to satisfy the old corporation's liabilities as much as possible.
Assuming the sale price is fair market value, there is no way to extract any more money from the company than that -- that's what fair market value means. You can't get any more money by forcing them to continue operating. Their future profits are built into the price of what you can sell their operations for. If that amount is less than what they owe, there is nowhere for the rest of the money to come from.
Well, you could eliminate limited liability and go after the shareholders, but if that's the intention then it shouldn't be done ex post facto.
Two things: impose duty of care and accuracy requirements, violation of which can kill the entire business; and restructure the industry to reduce switching costs, so that new rating administrators can come online faster and eliminate TBTF.
Not a big deal, just break it up into 4 smaller companies and let them fight it out. I'm sick of this craven unwillingness to interfere with business' systematic exploitation of consumers.
To add to that, the desktop site works* with javascript disabled, is faster that way, and has much fewer ads, but the mobile site doesn't even load under that condition.
Edit: * - works in a read-only sense, you have to turn JS on to comment or expand comments.
