The problem here is that only bad/negative/failed cases make it to discussion.
It's like researching the safety of driving by only looking at local news station websites. It will seem like the only thing those cars do is crash and kill people.
So, what do you expect from that hypotheically kinder person? Should they let themselves be scammed by me, once I am kidnapped, enslaved and forced into labour?
You are missing the point, though. The complainer decides whether it's a solvable problem or not, not the listener. So "I'll listen if it's unsolvable (to me)" is a non-starter.
Yes, it is called free speech, as is already duly noted in my parent comment which you may read again. In fact, the responsibility to note a legal doctrine of wrongdoing is entirely yours.
Free speech absolutely does allow assigning blame, whether correctly or incorrectly. It also allows suggesting criminal action at some point in the future, just not imminently.
Neato's D-Series Botvac just works (e.g., BVD8-SD/HP). No Bluetooth. No cloud. No Wi-Fi. Zero network connectivity required. Had mine about 10 years. Replaced the battery once, probably due for another one. Still cleans well.
I don't understand the appeal of having local appliances bound to the fate of network services.
I have a Neato D650 which I assume meets that classification and is covered by the service withdrawal, it is now pretty degraded -- no notifications, no mapping, no keep-out zones.
No notifications means if it gets stuck it stays there.
No mapping means if it doesn't fully clean the space (eg, a door is closed) then I have no way of knowing without baby-sitting it.
No keep-out zones means every clean involves carefully preparing the space to hang up trailing wires out of the way -- previously I just had some keep-outs near the wires and that worked perfectly.
Without all these features I have stopped using it; it is quicker to just use a stick vacuum.
Dig deep enough? Please. Merely tilt your head slightly upwards, and let your eyes feast on countless examples.
reply