Your question was sane and sounded like it was genuine until that. That is an invisible goalpost that can be moved by the question-asker at will to negate any disliked answer, to allow one to create an illusion that no answer exists.
I like this, but a bigger problem exists that needs to be solved. I suggest: any business that accepts money for services MUST have a way to reach a human & any email from them that is not purely informational may not be sent from a no-reply address. I am so tired of “$thing is wrong with your account. Please do not reply. Email is unmonitored. Don’t calls us — we dont have a phone number. Live chat is “ai only” and can do nothing to help you. In conclusion, fuck you. However, $thing is still wrong and if you don’t fix it somehow, $consequences will happen. GL&HF”
Nothing wrong with automated processes, I get that customer support costs money, but final appeals MUST exist and MUST go to a real human who has real ability to overrule the machines and speaks English.
Happened just today:
1. Found a bug in a web app
2. Reported bug to their listed support email
3. Got an auto-reply saying the inbox was unmonitored and I should read support articles instead
4. Couldn't find any relevant support articles
5. Tried a "contact us" button at the bottom of a page
6. Opened an image file saying live chat was available
7. Turned off adblock and found the live chat bubble
8. Opened to a chatbot where I described the bug
9. Chatbot said that's not expected and I should fill out their feedback form
10. Link opened to a generic Typeform with a text box asking "how they could improve"
I agree. The way I see it is the provider still needs to feel the pain of the problems they cause. otherwise they have no incentive to fix them or add monitoring of some sort to address issues asynchronously.
That’s part of it but most of it is the push to huge vehicles loaded with luxury features. The Subaru Outback we bought twenty years ago barely changed price despite gaining all of those safety features until they made it bigger and moved premium features into the new base model. Car companies were saved by cheap loan rates and normalizing previously unheard-of loan durations, and they realized that a lot of people won’t see the difference between financing $20k and $30k if they can keep the monthly payment plausible. Safety features are a popular excuse because it lets people disclaim responsibility for choosing to buy luxury features or perceived image.
It had more margin and manufacturer squeezed it to keep prices. If you want to see real prices look at cheapest cars. Those are no-margin. And that is why their prices are up.
This is not “an excuse”. I literally was in meetings where these cameras and extra compute were priced out in $pastJob. More cameras means more wires. More power supplies. More compute means higher end MCUs which are already very not cheap when it comes to automotive parts. More power supplies for the higher-end compute. Per-unit licensing costs for vendors’ algos to implement EAB and the like. Etc…
> It had more margin and manufacturer squeezed it to keep prices. If you want to see real prices look at cheapest cars. Those are no-margin. And that is why their prices are up.
At $25k total it had less margin than most of the domestic SUV market. People talked about safety or extra (i.e. less) cargo space or off-road capacity but that was the rationalization for all of the other frills built in to the trendy models. No-frills cars still exist, still pass safety tests, and cost literally half of the average MSRP. Safety features aren’t free but they’re not driving prices anywhere near as much as people claim: it’s just convenient to say that you’re broke because the big bad safety regulators forced you to buy the leather seats, integrated TVs, etc.
> Many new models come with parking sensors, forward-looking radar and cameras, and blind-spot monitoring.
> While those devices make driving safer, they also raise the cost of repairing cars.
I love the passive tense, as if all those things just happened, in a vacuum, not as if politicians we voted for mandated all of that, despite warnings of costs it would incur
In the long run, fewer accidents will lower lifetime ownership costs. Unfortunately in the short term, cars without those safety features cause much more expensive accidents.
And that may be true, but the point remains: it is illegal to make cheap cars due to regulations requiring a lot of features that cost a lot of money to implement.
I disagree. This feature protects people who do not know better. Those who do, instead of raising their blood pressure by writing rants, can simply disable this feature.
The hardware support was there for a while. Given that this runs macOS, i would guess (no insider knowledge) that it would work just fine and not be disabled like it is in iOS (by policy, not by technical reasons)
Your question was sane and sounded like it was genuine until that. That is an invisible goalpost that can be moved by the question-asker at will to negate any disliked answer, to allow one to create an illusion that no answer exists.
reply