Not the OP, but I assume they mean the requirement by society on how well individuals conform to the expectations of that society. In high compliance societies, individuals are ostracized / punished for non-conformance - think atheists in a religious society. In low conformance societies, individuals are able to maintain a high level of privacy or society is more tolerant of divergence.
Once a company starts selling ads, privacy is no longer in their interest. Even paid customers will get lumped in to monitoring and reporting to satisfy / push up ad revenues.
Victim blaming here isn't really very helpful. Cars should be designed with an eye towards how they perform in an emergency. There is a reasonable case that Tesla didn't do that. As an owner of a Model 3 now, it is concerning to me how I would get out of the car if the electrics fail as exiting requires a button press controlled by a computer.
Most people don't have a hammer / seat belt cutter. It is not a required piece of equipment. People aren't trained in its use. There is no expectation that a standard driver (at least in the US) should be able to use this tool. This is Tesla's issue, not the drivers.
Fair point, there is an obvious assumption that the driver was capable of using such a tool at the time. Anyway, I intention wasn't to blame, merely an dark observation.
In many situations (daycare, elder care) the caregivers are by no means strangers. My 2 year old spends as much or more time with her daycare teachers and classmates than she does with my wife and I.
They love her and she loves them. Just because they aren't blood doesn't mean they don't play a huge part in her day to day experience and growth. In fact, they play a much larger part in her world than her grandparents or other family that she only sees several times a year.
It feels to easy to dismiss these folks as 'not as good as family' when, at least in my experience, they are much more than just paid baby sitters.
I can't read the article (paywall), but in general - you can't. E&Y (and the other audit firms) have very real conflict rules that prevent audit customers from using advisory services and vice versa.
In fact, we went down the road in building out an offer that would have worked with one of the firms and we abandoned it because it was so painful to just determine if they had a conflict and then we would lose the customer if they did.
I got the 500 version based on this article from Wirecutter. Works well, but does require that we leave the door open for a while to let the plastic dry. Silent though. Most of the time, I can only tell it is running by the light on the ground.
I _just_ ordered a Bosch 500 series because my (barely 4 year old) GE model died over the weekend. I was told by a friend who owns the same Bosch model that they go through a lot of Jet Dry, though... But if it actually cleans well and doesn't break in a few years I'll be happy.
Yes. Many of the privacy and data protections are not based on where the data is stored, but rather where the people who provided that data reside. For example, GDPR (an EU regulation) applies to US companies with data in the US, but only if the data they are storing belongs to EU customers.
I get the resistance to whitewashing, but the terminology of 'processing' seems more accurate. Killing the animal is only the beginning of the process and is generally the least time intensive. Properly butchering an animal while maintaining food safety, producing the proper cuts, etc. is a process that requires tooling and expertise.
I would hope that everyone understands that creating a final meat product involves killing, but we shouldn't trivialize the process requirements just to drive an emotional point home.
You're right, there's much more than just killing. It just felt weird to me to lump killing in with "processing", maybe "killing and processing" would have been better.
But the $100 300-pound hog being discussed a few posts up is already dead when you buy it. It's not a euphemism; it would actually be incorrect to change it to "killing and processing a foo of that size at home is a big task".
It's a customer protection method. Most cryptominers are not using accounts they pay for. They compromise customer accounts and spin up resources. If you aren't proactive about communicating this to customers or blocking it, it can be quite some time before the customer notices and almost all customers will request a refund - even when the attack is a compromised password / successful phish on the customer's side.
Additionally, all cloud providers operate on various models of over-subscription. It is not in anyone's (customer / provider) interest to allow the full consumption of resources when the activity is fraudulent.
As you can see in the post-mortem, they are fine with the usage. They have a process and flag to allow legitimate customers to use their resources. However, based on previous experience at another cloud provider, I would bet that over 90% of those automated hits are correct.
This was bad support. They know that and they seem to be making the right moves to fix it. Fraud is bad for everyone and has to be combated. Not doing so can raise prices and kill a business like DO. I'm sure they feel awful that a customer was so poorly impacted, but the error wasn't in the first ban, it was everything after that.
Part of the whole issue here revolves around shared hosting in my opinion. Host hardware is so oversold that one customer utilizing 100% CPU is so impactful to a handful of other customers that it's not allowed at all. I have seen providers that has terminated services for less than 100% CPU usage, a constant 90% is enough on some of them. But due to the profit margins and shared hosting, providers are able to charge incredibly low prices per instance and be able to oversell their hardware sometimes as much as 10 to 20 times. That's as many as four hundred customers on a box that should maybe have 20 if it weren't oversold it all. In this case it really is an instance of you get what you pay for. The service we provide is no oversold hardware and all dedicated plans. Some people are initially very turned off by the pricing but the ability to allow customers to mine if they wanted to and not affect a single other customer on the platform giving each customer the same experience regardless of any other one images resource utilization, leaves too much happier customers even if smaller profit margins for us. At the end of the day customer experience and support provided are two of the most important factors in running a hosting provider. While I disagree with aspects of digital oceans business model as a shared hosting provider, I do think that the response to this was more than appropriate and better than would be expected of a lot of shared hosting providers, provided they actually implement any of the things talked about in the response.
If it was just the first point, the customer should be able to confirm that the activity was intended without even going through human review. It should be like when your bank texts you to confirm an odd transaction. They don't simply lock your account.
It sounds much more like it was the second point, which is unsettling. It's one thing to plan your pricing based on the assumption that most customers won't maximally-utilize. It's another thing to enforce a soft-limit that's vague and below what was advertised. I'd much rather have a lowered, known limit than whatever this is.
I totally agree, but unfortunately my bank (a major U.S. bank) does block a transaction and sometimes lock my credit card completely when they think the transaction is suspicious. There’s no confirmation mechanism, I have to call them to get the card unlocked. Of course, this usually gets resolved within five minutes (except that one time when I had to renew a .ng domain, and the Nigeria-originated transaction got auto-blocked three times in a row, and eventually the case had to be escalated to override their security mechanism entirely), not 29 hours.
Capital One did this to me once, and refused to restore the use of the blocked account even after I immediately called them and confirmed that the transaction that triggered the block was not fraudulent.
That's generally true in the states, but it is even worse. You as the patient don't see the actual price before the procedure (unless you ask). After the work is done, you then get a statement saying how much the procedure cost, what your insurance paid and what you owe. All those numbers are opaque and negotiable. Even better, it is common for insurance and the provider to continue sending you bills for months after even common procedures like child birth. It's a total mess.
Yeah, mostly a hospital could tell you what they will probably charge but they don't have all the variables to come up with what the actual negotiated charge will be nor what your co-pay would be.
Oh and just wait until you get to the sleazy methodology for charging those rates. Childbirth for instance, the room will be billed to the Mother for the days before the birth. So the Mother probably meets their deductible, then as soon as the child is born the room and all the things in it get billed to the child who now has a new deductible to hit before the insurance company has to pay their full amount.
