Wow, 2 bil. Finally a somewhat meaningful fine.
Fines need to be based on the profit made, or something they can't argue away through accounting footwork.
Currently sitting at 6.5 bil, potentially going to 7.7 bil.
Good.
BearOfaTime
joined 1 year ago
Especially suck less.
If they sucked less, they'd have broader appeal, meaning more consumers so could potentially, maybe, not be so overpriced vs their value.
Oh, who am I kidding? Hollywood has been a bunch of arrogant asshats forever.
The other cost to home lab serving lots of data is internet limits.
My internet will throttle after X terabytes (I forget the limit), whether upstream or down, and of course upload is slower.
It's like playing a game of tetris with costs, performance, stability, reliability, flexibility, privacy, security, and personal effort.
I'm not saying don't have a home lab, just that there are things to consider. It's worth the effort for me, though I'm working to move some things to cloud storage (e.g. Hetzner/Storj.io) and a VPS to get some of the bandwidth off my connection, and remove my home internet as a bottleneck or failure point.
In the real world there are way more pixels.
This is a shitty image.
That's just a bunch of pixels from a shitty image
What country is encryption-friendly, with a commitment to it?
Seems like a great way to attract businesses today.
I mean first rule of any company I've worked for is encrypted at rest, and even our dialup in the 90's used encryption via SecureID (well, verification anyway, since dialup is Point-to-point).
And business traffic in transit is encrypted today - including on our own networks.
They really should name the company.
It's not a person, it's a company behaving badly.
Easy... 1:30 of silence first.
That way they have to waste time to get to what you have to say. Or play a video of some kind.
Fuck em. They're being disrespectful of your time, waste theirs.
"Nevermind, I don't work with people who use idiotic interview processes. I can only imagine how dysfunctional and adversarial your company is, based on this idiocy".
Plus it's not like fully automatic is really all that useful, as the military can attest.
They don't even use full auto on the standard issue rifles - at most there's a burst option, because full auto is inaccurate.
Full auto, because it's inaccurate, is mostly useful for suppressive fire. I've shot full auto 7mm and 223. 7mm is just spray and pray, 223 slightly more controllable, but still you'd have to be an exceptional operator to be accurate. The recoil of 7mm for a single round is staggering, let alone full auto.
So the question then becomes - if they want to prevent full auto conversion (something of questionable usability), why?
Oh, that's right. It's about surveillance and control.
Can you explain why you like/dislike chocolate ice cream?
What's Google Assistant?