ox_cable

> Why do the job if you have actual contempt for your users?

To... To get paid, isn't that obvious? Sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

I've never seen a more biased, unsubstantiated, "back in my day" comment on HN. Well done. Give specifics if you want to be taken seriously instead of just saying "well, back in my day everything was better".

Spectre is a special case and I think you know it's a special case. Cut it out.

Well,expecting there to be a patch without the 90 day exploit exposure is very generous. The whole point of a 90-day (or any arbitrary stretch of time) deadline is that a lot of companies are funny when it comes to exploits. Security doesn't ever make a company money, it's a high cost that can only (at best) hope to prevent the company from having to make reparations after a breach, maybe lose a few customers. As such, many companies treat security reports with indifference and do nothing whatsoever about reported exploits until they're forced to. The only real way private researchers or security groups like Project Zero have to light a fire under the company concerning the exploit is to release the exploit to the public when it becomes clear that the company isn't going to fix the vulnerability on their own. At least now consumers are made aware of the exploit and can make an informed decision on a plan of action. 90 days, 180 days, a year... it doesn't matter because people would criticize the length of time no matter what it is.

Exactly. I run my own arch distro and still recognize that macs are used by large numbers of higher ups in every single company I consult at.

There comes a point where the time and energy I'd have to spend on troubleshooting, tool selection/purchase, part ordering, and temporarily learning the skill become more important to me than saving a few hundred bucks. I just could not care less. I used to be a very avid DIY'er, but eventually I passed a point where most of the time I'd rather pay someone else to solve a problem.

Sources, please.

That's funny, it almost sounds like you're suggesting it's common to have a job that's more relaxing and restful than actual leisure time.

Yupp, because so many apps are open source.

While I'm sure I'm in the minority, I absolutely do have the birthright to control what content appears on my device. If they want to prevent ads from being blocked, blocking me from using their service is 100% fine by me.

Pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't one way to solve the "store electricity for later" problem we have with renewable energy be to use the unused power generated at peak times to produce a stable, long term material that can be used to generate energy on demand? Example: using excess energy collected at peak times to convert large amounts of water into oxygen and hydrogen by way of electrolysis, store the hydrogen for later, and then depend on hydrogen fuel cells during periods of little to no energy collection?

Except they do give you a way to contact them. They ALWAYS give you a way to contact them. The fact that you can't follow their cancelation process all the way through is on you, not them, and that's exactly how the courts treat it after your account becomes delinquent and is sent to collections.

The BBB is an absolute joke; you buy your ratings. As someone who's had direct contact with the BBB in a corporate context, I can say with absolute honesty and surety that the ONLY criteria that decides a corporation's BBB score is whether or not they paid the annual BBB administration fee. Ask around, talk to your friends who have had direct access- they'll confirm what I'm saying 100%. Filing a complaint with the BBB does precisely dick and angrily saying "well, I guess I'll go file a complaint with the BBB as soon as I'm off the phone with you" when on the phone trying to cancel a service serves only to make the rep you're talking to mute their microphone so they can laugh out loud at you. You think the rep you're talking to gives a flying lawnmower about your little BBB complaint? If you do, I own a bridge in California that I'd love to sell you.

That's all kinds of stupid. You might retain some cash in the meantime and feel better about "sticking it to the man," but the reality is you entered into an agreement and from both legal and corporate perspectives, you're defaulting and committing fraud. Is it right? No, not at all. Do I hate that it works this way? Absolutely. But sticking your head in the sand and pretending everything is fine is a great way to get screwed. Enjoy it while it lasts; it's only a matter of time before you defraud the wrong corporation who will bend you over a barrel and show you the 50 states. I've worked in my fair share of customer service and customer loyalty departments before and I've talked to enough people who had no idea their debt had been sold to a collections agency to even pretend that your approach is the right approach.

Um, no. That's not accurate at all. Maybe it's different outside the US, but many states are "single-party consent" states, meaning you don't need permission to record them and vice-versa. The biggest reason that many companies disclose the fact that they're recording the call is that you might be calling from a location that requires consent from all parties; they want to cover their butts.