And risk being locked out of the world’s online marketplace and all of Amazon’s other businesses? Maybe a bit hyperbolic but that’s where we are headed for sure.
It's perfectly feasible to never use Amazon. I don't know your situation, but i think people should go out more and prefer quality over quantity. Most of the stuff that Amazon sell is crap anyway.
> but i think people should go out more and prefer quality over quantity
Whether you find higher quality in your local area depends on your local area and what you're buying. More generally applicable, you can find higher quality with independent online stores.
True, especially the goods shipped "with prime". It's always a 5-10 bucks premium over the AliExpress price of the same item. It depends on how much in a hurry I am.
IDK, I think this is too negative a take. It's easy to blame those in charge for not realising that your problem was the important one but ... how many problems were they being presented with?
Sure, in this instance, they prioritised the wrong problems. But perhaps the case wasn't made clearly enough to make it apparent why this was as big a deal as it was.
I think Occam's razor explains this: the majority of people are incompetent.
People get to positions of power through many means and very few of those are related to competence. Be it nepotism, boot licking, friendship, inheritance, people failing upwards or just plain luck, these all lead to the same result: incompetent people making decisions.
Add to that the fact that it's very easy to hide incompetency in large organizations and we have the perfect recipe for these kinds of disasters.
Even on small organizations this is common. I've seen plenty of incompetent people getting funding for startups making all the wrong decisions. They're good at selling some BS to investors and that's about it, but now they're at the helm of an organization with people under them. Another good example is people opening businesses from their successes in other areas (I made money here, now let me open a restaurant with zero experience in this industry) or even out of their parent's pockets.
I mean I'd guess it was because it's somewhere with a higher bar to firing. Redundancy or dismissal are both much more complicated (expensive) than simply making it very clear you'd like someone to leave.
Yeah I thought this was a weird take too. Too often people take privacy for "I can do what I like". IMO deleting something you've sent to someone else is not a privacy concern at all.
IIRC it is possible to have some clever encryption so that the person you sent your message to can prove to their own satisfaction that it came from you, but they cannot prove to anyone else that it came from you. Which gives you plausible deniability; you can always claim that your contact forged the message.
No particular name. Just deniability. I personally like to call this particular scheme, deniability through claimed forgery. Not particularly clever. You just provide your correspondent with what they need to forge your messages after the end of the session.
I don't know if it actually could work in practice:
Isn't the scheme simply agreeing in a shared key and both using it? I'll know that the message is from you if it's signed with that key and is not from me and vice versa, but neither of us can prove who created the message.
Just one example, but trying to get that revenge porn off the web, can be seen as an attempt to restore ones privacy. Where others should not have the right to continue to peek into ones private life.
That's not quite the kind of thing I was talking about. I think that is generally already covered by current laws in most places?
The right-to-be-forgotten advocates argue that everyone should have the right to demand that any trace of their previous online existence be deleted. On social media of course, but also independent web forums, chat logs, git commits, etc.
Even if it were a privacy issue, it would be impossible to enforce it technologically via FOSS software, because, by definition, the user at the other end could run a forked version with remote deletion disabled.
Yeah, people have such short memories for this stuff. When we ran our own servers a couple of jobs ago, we had a rota of people who'd be on call for events like failing disks. I don't want to ever do that again.
In general, I'm much happier with the current status of "it all works" or "it's ALL broken and its someone else's job to fix it as fast as possible"!
Not saying its perfect but neither was on-prem/colocation
Yeah they keep re-inforcing bad vendor lockin practices. id guess the number of free users surpass the paying ones , and situations like these leave them all unable to recover.
in the uk job losses and firings are different things, with different meanings, so the criticism here is a bit off.
job loss / redundancy = there is no need for this role any more. your job is gone
firing = you are not appropriate/fit/whatever for this role. your employment is gone. someone else can have your job
(the passive/active criticism is totally right though. this should read "Amazon CUTS / REMOVES 14,000 jobs")
reply