wonderful -- now take the modern case where the most fertile land, covered with farming, is converted to cement and home sales due to 100x immediate cash returns. The price? pavement is forever
many readers here have not experienced a standard of customer support that was common decades ago. Google in particular created a new standard for ignoring the customer on a large scale, in my own experiences. Secondly, the customer paid money to a company for service, while an emergent business form does not take money from the customer directly, blurring the definition of customer.
I strongly agree that failure to stand for consumer rights is both learned helplessness and an apologist cooperator psychology. CA Voter here.
"you" and "we" are so very over used here.
In Enterprise services, there are entire companies who take contracts to do "actual work" and the corporate mothership now has the power of the purse, and martini lunches. Meanwhile, aggressive entrepreneurs hire temp workers and outsource to do digital work under the threat of the lash.
Oh - this is just new markets stabilizing, surely the real world will stabilize back to fair contracts, health care, market rate long-term employment for families, and generally the rule of law?
Take a look at the global fishing industry, one of the oldest industries on Earth, and sharing the feature that the work product a) must constantly be renewed b) the work product is fungible. hint- slavery is real and is outsourced today, by brands that you know and trust at the grocery store.
the Gnome that came with Debian Trixie is certainly worse than my stable Linux previous desktop, including eye-candy desktop effects coupled with remarkable fails on simple GUI features that have been stable for thirty years.
This is a judgement from the DPC in Ireland, which has a history of reluctance [0] when it comes to enforcing the GDPR on US corporations, e.g. in [1] they even had to be ordered by a court to start investigating. I don't see the Irish DPC voluntarily choosing to take on more oversight here.
It's more than that though. I authored the original work. Then the Baron in the Castle collected the work and uses it without fully understanding it. The Baron gives it out but in a partly-true, distorted form. He misunderstand how it applies and teaches people false clearly facts with it, with an air of authority. But when people try to find the source argument to see if the Baron is really on track, they have no idea. The Baron is just confidently parroting a compelling sounding set of words.
For me the issue is more about the loss of truth than the loss of my IP.
That is pretty weak logic. I mean obviously it is the Baron who becomes wealthy. But what follows from this?
By the same logic if Baron bought her baroness masterful dress to enjoy her look in that dress, and you when walked past the Castle saw the baroness in that dress, should you compensate to the Baron or not?
fallacy and apologist point of view here. Shall we dig in?
fallacy is "Oh I guess you mean" .. insert large unsolvable and probably unpopular derailment. Bonus points for aggressive labeling of the opponent being opposed to money.
apologist - "Any company on earth" .. We all stand together, Every Company On Earth .. does this warrent serious replies?
reply