imtyler's comments

Is there any service that presents an elegant solution to managing actual identities on the Internet? If not, it seems like a real problem that needs solving.

I understand people value the ability to express themselves anonymously, but I've also been locked out of legitimate accounts--

If everyone is anonymous nobody can be verified. If everyone's identity is tied to their handle there's no anonymous expression.

If somebody could provide a way to both have and eat the proverbial cake, that seems like real winning proposition in my eyes, something worth paying for...

I'm not sure what you're trying to assert?

I'm not aware of a ile scale of brilliance. I also don't know why a history or libertarianism is relevant?

I just think that the comment wasn't constructive.

Unless you provide reasoning this comes across as needlessly snide.

Apple patented a system to do this in 2016[1] but has yet to implement it afaik.

[1]https://m.dpreview.com/news/0190365065/apple-patents-system-...

In addition to being somewhat condescending, your language seems to imply that an employee is never justified in questioning their company.

For instance, you've said "why people feel" instead of "why this person felt." Additionally, you're broadly referring to "companies" and not just "Google."

Whether or not protesting was the correct course of action in this particular case, I'm not sure. But please don't broadly imply that all whistle-blowers are entitled reward-seekers.

The comparison isn't wrong, it's nonsensical.

It's like comparing the mortality rate of heart surgery to that of psychotherapy because they're both performed by doctors.

If I died from talking to a therapist then, yes, I would see that as a major problem. The mortality rate of brain surgery wouldn't factor in to my decision making in this regard, because it's unrelated.

If I died on a Boeing aircraft with an inherently dangerous design flaw that makes it relatively more dangerous than other planes then, yes, I would see that as a problem.

The sad fact that driving is more dangerous does not mitigate that... because it's unrelated.

I think you're arguing that the relationship between activities doesn't matter, but when it comes to expectations, I'd argue it's the only thing that matters.

Sure, but that's not what I've taken issue with.

Once again, my issue is that you appear to have falsely compared flight safety to car safety despite the fact that the two operate in very different ways.

Respectfully, my objection is the implication that people should be okay with an "acceptable rate of mortality" for air travel because there's a relatively high rate of mortality for automobile travel (which is unrelated.)

You're comparing the mortality rate of automobile travel to that of aircraft travel. Would you also compare the rates at which the two forms of travel are subject to, say, bird collisions?

Comparing the two is drawing a false equivalence. Yes, flying and driving are both modes of transportation, but they're radically different in terms of methodology.

I'm a fan of what Disney did with MoviesAnywhere-- buy a movie once and it becomes playable through all participating linked providers. So you can, for instance, buy a movie on Amazon and play it back on iTunes.

The catch being that it only applies to movie purchases by participating studios. No rentals, subscription based streaming, or TV shows.

But imagine if that's how other services worked. One can always dream.

When it comes to DRM and content hosting, the recent closure of the Microsoft ebook store comes to mind.

If a marketplace is underutilized it risks becoming obsolete. And, unfortunately, sometimes that means loosing access to content.

There are additional considerations, of course. Steam is also a social network of sorts, so fracturing gaming communities is also of concern. But it could also just be that gamers are accustomed to Steam; they like it. And they don't like platforms that don't play well with it.

GOG Connect may be along the lines of what you're describing. The compatibly of games is on a temporary basis set by the publisher, but, yes, it does allow you to activate Steam purchases on GOG.

My two cents on Stadia: people don't like platforms that challenge Steam.

Steam was the first big digital games marketplace, and people have been using it for a long time. They've amassed many games, the future playability of which depends on the continued availability of Steam to host the code.

If you threaten Steam, you threaten a lot of hardcore gamer's libraries. Any platform that tries to compete is always controversial.

That's why I think some may be rooting for failure, formed through anecdotal observation.

Wow. The password manager I've been using for the past few years has dedicated buttons/gestures for copying the password to the clipboard (like many others, I'd assumed.)

I feel like the expectations in this case are clear: a copied password should only accessible when the user "pastes" it. (The app even clears the clipboard after a certain amount of time, making it seem like the only weak point in the system is the paste functionality.)

To find out that this is not the case is pretty mind blowing. Does anybody know of any good reasons why the clipboard shouldn't be secure?

>...They set up a legal landscape for their own benefit and everyone else’s detriment.

So if I’m understanding correctly, the problem is not a lack of willingness to break up/regulate this monopoly, but instead the regulations and lobbying that explicitly facilitated its creation?

Are there any inherent facets of a free market that prevent such abuses?

>People seem to think that the defective US healthcare system is an indictment on free-market capitalism. But there's nothing free-market at all about our system. What it's really an indictment on is cronyism, corruption, and rent-seeking.

Isn't the allowance of 'cronyism' etc, what makes the market "free?"

This is, of course, why they’ve qualified the association as being a personal one. “For us,” the circle represents…

Implying that this interpretation may/should be true for others comes across to me as self-serving, though. You can attach whatever meaning you wish to a circle, but unless you make an actual effort to convey that meaning, then a circle remains... a circle. And they haven’t made any effort to do so here.

IMO, They’re just serving up a big cup of hyperbole for anyone willing to take a sip. Par for the usual corporate course, I guess.

I understand your point, but what good are master tapes if they're not available to be heard? I think you could argue that destroying a musical distribution network has the same effect as destroying music: it's no longer available to be consumed.

If the cost of maintaining one's business practices requires subsidization by means of deception then really shouldn't matter.

Even if you're one of the ones who are benefitting and not getting screwed.

I feel like there's some hindsight bias here. By that I mean:

If I took two equally bad games-- one by a legitimate developer who may need some practice, and another by a developer whose intention is to scam the system-- would you be able to tell which is which?

I would argue that the former has a right to be on the platform (good luck trying to objectively define what constitutes a 'good' game, after all) and the latter does not. But there's no way to tell them apart until the devs show their true colors.

Seems fair to me.