Honestly Microsoft's hardware has been a rocky road. I own a Surface Pro 3 and Surface Book, and in both cases they were unstable for almost six months until receiving firmware and driver updates.
After they were patched they've been stable as a rock and "just work." But it has felt like Microsoft shipped half baked hardware.
Plus while Windows 10 is stable, it feels like a moving target with large feature patches that also don't always feel fully baked.
In-spite of the above I really like Microsoft's hardware and oddly would recommend it. It is definitely heading in a good direction, but isn't up to the height of Apple's "just works" period (which I don't believe we're still in).
No what I said was that there's no value even having a FSA until you cap your HSA. An FSA is worse than a HSA by every metric, cannot invest it, lose it after twelve months, many lack a debit card (or charge), cannot increase or decrease it after open enrollments and so on.
I get a HDHP, put the savings from not paying high premiums into HSA. The problem with california is, this is treated as income, and capital gains/interests/dividends trigger income either way. Not that it'd matter, but i see your point about FSA coming after from HSA. IT's fair.
We did exactly this last time (prescription sunglasses and regular from Zenni). We went to Costco for the exam/prescription which was pretty hassle free. I'll set out the positives and negatives:
Positive: They nailed the prescription (perfect). The lenses were as thin as normal with the 1.67 "high-index polymer" upgrade (which is important as the prescription is bad in one eye, could result in super thick lenses). In all other respects they do what they say they do.
Negatives: We ran into an unexpected and ultimately fatal issue; even with perfect lenses and fine looking frames, my wife could not get them to sit straight or comfortably on her face. They'd slide down her nose and fall, both pairs. We bent them with pliers and a heat gun, followed the guide on Zenni's site, even had the gall to take them into an opticians (Standard Optical) and they tried adjusting them for us, no dice. This is on both pairs (sunglasses and regular). Even after our best attempts and taking them into a Standard Optical, we could not make it work.
We now have two pairs of Zenni sitting in a draw and had to spend another $180+ on just regular glasses from Costco (no sunglasses due to cost). These ones at least stay on her face. It is such an obnoxious and unusual issue to have, but two frames from two different lines of frames both didn't work for us and could not be fixed. It definitely shows the biggest problem with online glasses shopping in general, good prices, but if they don't fit your face then you're now out $170 (Plus whatever we spent at Costco after failing at Zenni).
This isn't meant to be a slam against Zenni in particular, they did what they said they'd do at a good price. This is a cautionary tale about online glasses shopping in general...
We didn't return because we didn't feel it was Zenni's fault. There was no defect with the glasses, they just didn't happen to fit my wife's face and couldn't be adjusted to.
I was just posting to point out an inherent flaw with the entire concept of online glasses ordering and one I have no solution to.
I'd love to imagine a future where they can 3D scan a face and produce bespoke frames.
The unconditional return warranty exists because fit & style are difficult online. Returns are included in the price you paid, it’s like insurance, not everyone needs it, but sometimes you do.
Aircraft are an interesting case where nobody except state actors can really afford to evaluate their security.
White hats and grey hats know the whole area is a minefield, and even a whiff of impropriety can bring the heel of the law down upon you. Airlines and aircraft makers both have a financial conflict of interests, discovering vulnerabilities and deploying fixes in existing aircraft could cost millions.
For NEW aircraft designs there is an incentive to discover and mitigate potential issues, but given aircraft's shelf life that might not be good enough over the long haul.
What can be done? I guess schemes like this one, that bring industry experts together with a real working aircraft and letting them try. But for political reasons even schemes like this could be unpopular if Boeing's shares take a hit and aircraft are grounded for service.
Apparently it's not too hard to evaluate the security, it's just costly to publicize it:
> The initial response from experts [I assume in the aerospace industry?] was, “’We’ve known that for years,’” and, “It’s not a big deal,” Hickey said.
> But in March 2017, at a technical exchange meeting, he said seven airline pilot captains from American Airlines and Delta Air Lines in the room had no clue.
> “All seven of them broke their jaw hitting the table when they said, ‘You guys have known about this for years and haven’t bothered to let us know because we depend on this stuff to be absolutely the bible,'” Hickey said.
> Aircraft are an interesting case where nobody except state actors can really afford to evaluate their security
Would this be true in countries where aircraft manufacturers aren’t also defence contractors? Or even for American non-defence plane makers, e.g. Cessna?
Beechcraft (formerly a Raytheon subdivision) makes utility aircraft (usually variants of civilian models), trainers, and target drones. They also have a light attack variant (AT-6) of one of their trainers, which as far as I know has not managed to get adopted; and have proposed a from-scratch jet-powered light attack aircraft as part of a USAF competition.
EDIT: And they also use this class of commercial jetliners; the main USAF mid-air refueler is a 767 variant, and the military has a dozen or so C-40s (a 737 variant) for logistics and airborne command posts.
Did a bit of not-super-random sampling; the only ones I'm seeing that don't produce for the military are kitplane manufacturers and this lovely oddity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrafugia
(And of those kitplane manufacturers, many of them also make drones for the Army and Navy.)
There is just so much overlap between civilian and military models (much more so than in, say motor vehicles) that the line between military and civilian products gets fuzzy.
And do what? Logitech hasn't established a specific duty (inc. contract) to keep their devices online for any length of time. So therefore the only test might be "reasonable expectation" which is a pretty low bar.
The FTC are likely pretty powerless in this situation. Only negative PR and taking your business elsewhere may assist here but given the lack of competition in this space, good luck!
That's something I don't understand either. The government here has completely forbidden tobacco ads. Why not do the same with McDonalds and all that stuff? Will we have to wait a few decades more for the gov to catch up?
