Yes I should have specified that this advice is specific to RAID configurations in NAS applications.
If you're occasionally copying data to an external USB drive, that's totally fine. That's what they were designed for.
The issue is that they were not designed for continuous use, or much more demanding applications like rebuilding/resilvering a drive. It's during these applications that issues occur, which is a double whammy, because it can cause permanent data loss if your USB drive fails during a recovery operation. I did a little more research after posting my last comment and came across this helpful post on the TrueNAS forums going into more depth: https://forums.truenas.com/t/why-you-should-avoid-usb-attach...
YMMV. I have a 4-drive 20TB mdraid10 across two different $50 USB3.0 2-drive enclosures, I've read petabytes off this array with years of uptime and absolutely zero problems. And it runs on one of those $300 off brand NUCs. The 2.5G NIC is the bottleneck on reads.
If it's a Google TV, there's an app you can sideload called SmartTube, which doesn't play ads and has SponsorBlock built-in. I went from often using my laptop just to play videos without being interrupted constantly, to actually enjoying using the TV app.
Weirdly enough, there are a few systems at my workplace which are in the 192.9.200.x subnet! They're only about 20 years old, though. We are actively looking to replace the entire system.
I've done work for several municipalities and police departments in western Ohio and found 192.9.200.0/24 in several. They all had a common vendor who did work back in the 90s and was the source.
This comparison is invalid. Gmail is a separate product from the phone, and importantly, not advertised as being included with the phone. BMW owners are paying separately for the API access, which has now been limited after the sale.
You accept a license agreement and terms and conditions when you buy the car which lets them pretty much do anything they want with the software. Do you think these company are run by a bunch of 12 year olds and not their legal departments. How can you be so pedantic but at the same time so naive?
>You accept a license agreement when you buy the car which lets them pretty much do anything they want with the software.
This cannot override your rights as a consumer. If I sell you a service, I'm required to provide you that service as agreed upon at time of purchase for the duration of the contract.
>How can you be so pedantic but at the same time so naive?
Well it kind of can. see all the other companies who have done exactly this with no repercussion: Mazda, Chevrolet, Chamberlain, etc. See companies like Eufy and Philips that sell products advertised working within a local intranet only and then change their mind after the fact (in Philips case over a decade after, when some users had invested hundreds or even thousands into the hue ecosystem).
There appears to be no regulation protecting consumers from this abusive behavior. If it does exist it is not enforced whatsoever.
In no cases can any contract overrule the law. However, you are correct that the law is not being enforced, because it is exceedingly difficult for an individual person to tackle a massive company like BMW. The point of Rossmann's video, if I understand it correctly, is that we shouldn't just keep letting them get away with it, and actually defend our rights.
Indeed. It’s the price of the car itself that makes it more difficult to challenge - which is why people often go for lower monetary compensation through the small claims track (which has a max claim value variable depending on country)
More significant ones, obviously, that discourage them from engaging in such anticonsumer behavior. One should not have to engage in individual legal action to to get what they paid for
That said I applaud you for taking them to charge. Good for you. I assume you had to return the devices? I wonder how this would work for people who invested 5, 7, 10+ years ago. I would hope the same.
Yeah, I had to return the devices. The compensation awarded was based around the claimed “lifespan” of the lighting. i.e 8 years remaining of the 10 year claim.
They didn’t turn up. But I have had other rulings where the company sent a representative, and many where they settle beforehand - not that it is any of your business. I’m just a savvy consumer, as are my friends and family.
It's the two of you talking in circles. You lie (>>which they lost because they breached consumer law), deflect and don't bring anything tangible to the discussion besides anecdotes. Everyone who cites "consumer laws" in this thread ignores the lived reality of consumers in the EU.
It shouldn't be different. It's also illegal to not fulfill the contract as agreed upon in those cases, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. And the product in question is not the car, the API access is provided as a separate subscription service.
If it's a seperate t&c and license agreement for the api it's even easier for them to disable services. You are making these statement with so much confidence but the real world works the opposite. Apple throttles iPhones, Google kills services pair of free. Samsung pushes ads on their smarttvos. I think their lawyers are right and you misunderstand the law you are citing otherwise the world would be a better place :)
Just because it happens and the companies face no consequences does not mean that it is legal. The problem is that the lawyers aren't getting involved at all because no one bothers to sue, due to the difficulty and (usually) relatively small amount of money involved.
>You always have the right to a minimum 2-year guarantee if the digital content or service turns out to be faulty, not as advertised or not working as expected. If the supplier cannot fix the content or service within a reasonable time, free of charge and without significant inconvenience to you, you can ask for a reduction in the price or to terminate the contract.
And how does this apply here? The service isn't even killed like Rossmann blurbs in the video. Did you read the offer or the license of it because it looks more and more like you did not. Especially the faulty or does not work as advertised is plain wrong. The works as expected part would be true in your case but just because you had false pretenses to begin with. To take your words "It looks like you have no idea what you are talking about." Sorry but even companies have rights.
How does it not? The service was advertised with API access previously, and now that access has been severely limited in the middle of the service period.
>Did you read what's the offer or the license of it because it looks more and more like you did not.
I read it just fine, and I understand it just fine.Clearly you have a different interpretation, one which I strongly disagree with.
>To take your words "It looks like you have no idea what you are talking about."
I never said that, so now you're just making stuff up. No more point in discussing the matter if you cannot stay grounded in reality.
We certainly have different opinions. You still have 100 API calls every 24 hours. Sorry but I would see it as abusive if my API would be hammered with over 300-1000 requests per day for the status of a damn car like some in the GitHub comments were doing.
It probably was someone else in the so sorry for the misunderstanding about the no idea stuff.
tbh I am over it there is no reasoning with people that actively want to abuse systems so they can rice their home assistant dashboard and cry about getting rate limited so they can only update their car status every 15 minutes if they want 24 hours coverage. It's not normal use. hf gl
> How can you be so pedantic but at the same time so naive?
Wow, insulting others when you clearly have no clue what you are talking about.
In the EU a license agreement cant override your consumer rights. If the car was marketed as having a cardata feature and now that feature is restricted, under EU law you are entitled for it to be restored or fairly compensated - which could mean returning the car if it was a marketed feature and a major factor in the purchasing decision - although it’s more likely to be a monetary compensation for minor features. There’s even specific guidance for “digital elements” of products to cover things exactly like this.
I haven’t returned a car, but I have either returned or requested compensation for other consumer items for similar reasons - and was compensated fairly given their use.
Go and sue them we will wait with anticipation for the ruling. Last sentence from my first comment stands and could be applied to you as well. Just had a look at their Terms and Conditions and they are pretty clear.
>> Why should a car be different in regards to software than your washing machine, tv or iPhone?
Again, terms and conditions can't override consumer rights.
The car shouldn't be different from the washing machine, the TV, and the iPhone. I should get a refund if functionality is removed from any of them after purchase.
It's done everyday by thousands of companies and I've never seen a ruling in the EU or otherwise. Apple still throttles iPhones, Google still kills services paid or free. Samsung pushes ads into their smartTVs... Everyone in this thread makes these comments with full confidence but the real world reflects the opposite.
> Go and sue them we will wait with anticipation for the ruling
We don't need to 'sue' as we aren't Americans.
Strong consumer rights laws in the UK and EU mean that if goods are not as described and/or become disabled or are not of reasonable quality, it is straight forward to either reject the goods (and get a full refund) or claim appropriate compensation for your losses.
So why does it happen every day? With prominent examples of Apple, Google and others that get chastised in the media but not in court? You bring the same argument which is not the lived reality of consumers in the EU.
Argument from authority is not particularly strong. The information on putty.org is considered misinformation by the vast majority of professionals in the field of infectious diseases.
This is the modern world that we live in. If being “Vice President and Worldwide Head of Research in allergic and respiratory diseases at Pfizer” with 25 years of career does not qualify to talk about vaccines (in the context of of Covid, I assume because I do not know him or the videos), I frankly don’t know what does
Like being an expert in virology and vaccine therapies for example. Or being boots on the ground rather than a bean counter. Really doesn't take that much imagination now, does it? Or is this "modern world that we live in" this anemic on imagination power?
I'm sure we can then find experts with those kinds of qualifications who also pushed covid misinformation (or to use more old-school terms, straight up fucking lies and unfounded, conspiratorial speculations) and held minority opinions.
Then we can lament on how having a minority opinion means your opinion is definitely being unjustly oppressed, as opposed to justly oppressed, which somehow we'll not be able to produce an example for. Does that really matter though if we can just pretend that we do have an example, or even believe outright we do and just not agree?
Or maybe we can lament on how just blindly trusting either authority or expertise is possibly not the most solid idea in the world. As if we actually had the option to do otherwise at scale, even in the best case scenario, and all people were magically equal and equipped to do so.
Humans and their unattainable reasoning ability. Oh the modern world. Yeah right.
So an expert is exactly the one you want to believe, and no other person, and you tailor the definition just exactly, so only people with your opinion are experts.
At least the reading comprehension monster will never hurt you, that's for sure. Your previous comment makes perfect sense now too, along with why you'd be whinging about oh the modern world.
If truth, reason and wisdom looks like not even being able to copy and paste the guy's job title properly from Wikipedia, or absentmindedly forming a strawman with full confidence due to being abject unable to read, indeed, I shall speed right on. That's not a form of truth, reason and wisdom I ever want reaching me.
Like imagine thinking that parsing this:
> I'm sure we can then find experts with those kinds of qualifications who also pushed covid misinformation (or to use more old-school terms, straight up fucking lies and unfounded, conspiratorial speculations) and held minority opinions.
as this:
> So an expert is exactly the one you want to believe, and no other person, and you tailor the definition just exactly, so only people with your opinion are experts.
resembles any form of intelligence. These two are in direct contradiction!
Is this really that big of a bar? Let's read together!
> I'm sure we can then find experts with those kinds of qualifications
So I recognize that there are experts with the "right qualifications", whatever that means to me, we don't even have to agree.
> who also pushed covid misinformation and held minority opinions.
So no, I do not stop recognizing them as experts, despite them not confirming my beliefs. Instead, what I do is consider them to have pushed covid misinformation, holding minority opinions, despite being experts with the "right qualifications".
Was this really that hard? I even featured multiple paragraphs after this arguing back and forth on your behalf!
Trusting expert or authority opinion is analogous to trusted computing. It works until it doesn't, and when there's debate among the trusted parties, there's two options: unanimous consensus, which humanity is not exactly known for as you can tell, or majority consensus, which yielded that the guy is wrong period. Choose anything else, and you're discarding the trust-based model in favor of something else; there's no trust and/or no consensus.
And what model do people turn to when there's no trust? Verifiability. This is why I brought up that at scale, verifiability is simply not viable, not as far as I can tell, and somehow this wasn't what you latched on to either. Current state of affairs could be improved a lot, I do think that academic research output has a lot of room for improvement in accessibility, and that getting up to speed with a different area to one's own shouldn't be as hard as it is. But just think about our guy and his claims in practical terms. He was claiming things like "nuh-uh, no second wave in the UK". How are you going to hand verify that yourself on your own? Are you going to act a Santa Claus one night and just visit everyone and take samples? Come on.
And so this was never actually about either of these. It was about believing different things and then piling on top whatever is available, reversing what came first: the thought, or the rationale behind that thought.
I can understand if someone, irrespective of the (majority) scientific consensus on mask use, vaccination, distancing, sanitation, and isolation, simply still chooses to not fall in line out of gut feeling or whatever, and owns up to it. That is at least intellectually honest. But this "oh so you're thinking <the exact opposite of what I said>" and this "a handful of experts out of millions claim otherwise so they're right and unjustly oppressed, and everyone else is wrong and complicit" rubbish is pitiful. The putty.org owner could swap the current text out for free infinite energy or flat earth theory and it would be equally believable. You see countless of those with the same sob story of being unjustly oppressed and then the thing somehow turning out to be bollocks or a scam, sometimes both, all the time. With the rare but convenient few experts chiming in being the occasional icing on the cake, much like the phony full time jury-only experts presenting on court in favor of insurance companies.
It is simply not reasonable to believe in what the guy is pushing, unless you've been believing that from the get-go - at which point, there's nothing to argue anyways. This is unlike the trust-based or the verification-based models, which have more going for them than just the sheer belief of individuals, and where there is capacity for arguments. Arguments that we are not having, because you're entirely too busy intentionally(?) misreading the guy's work title and qualifications, and intentionally(?) misreading what I wrote.
The conclusion I come to from this is that yes, I actually do need tmux, as the alternatives proposed are far more annoying and provide no benefit. I don't have a need for graphics in the terminal, and frankly I find it odd that we wouldn't simply display graphics... with the graphics system. But I do have a need for seamless session persistence and multiple terminals, and I do enjoy splitting a window when I'm running a command on multiple servers.
