anaximander

I used to work at a place that made smart chargers for EVs. They did all sorts of intelligent scheduling, V2H and V2G, grid response and load shedding, some really clever stuff. The standard for most charger interfaces allows for the vehicle to communicate a load of information to the charger, and almost none of them implemented any more than the bare minimum. I’m many cases the charger can’t even tell how full the car’s battery is, it just has to charge until the car disconnects itself and stops charging, and assume it’s done so because it’s full. So, I wouldn’t be surprised if Teslas don’t communicate as much over OBD as you’d expect given the standard it supposedly implements. Manufacturers seem to be quite content to keep that stuff proprietary wherever they can.

Stoicism says something similar, although it gets there via a very different route.

A lot of food places, particularly eat-in restaurants, are just perpetually struggling. Half the staff are on minimal pay, or the owner’s friends and family helping out. They struggle and lose money for a few years before finally folding. A regular who has no idea about the industry buys the place and keeps much of it the same because they always loved it. The process repeats.

Continuing to support demand for beef at current rates as the population grows means that beef production must increase. That means we need more cows. Where do you propose we put all those cows? The current solution has been to cut down trees to create usable land. What’s your alternative?

The water level will be affected by the car’s acceleration, which is likely also affecting your inner ear and causing the illusion in the first place.

One thing I often see is people not understanding the difference between secrecy and privacy. They ask why it matters if you’re not doing anything wrong. A UK government minister actually said “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”, and then backpedaled when someone pointed out they were quoting Joseph Goebbels. The analogy I’ve seen is simple: I’m sure you don’t do anything illegal in the shower, but I’m also pretty sure most people would be uncomfortable with a law that required you to have a police officer standing in you bathroom with a video camera to record you showering, just in case.

The other thing is the assumption that any information about you that the government actually has about you will only be used against you if you commit a crime, in which case you’ll deserve it - if you’re not a bad person then it’s fine. This is a double fallacy.

First, we’ve seen that information can be used to do all sorts of things regardless of wrongdoing - if someone knows enough about you, they can use it to manipulate you. I don’t mean blackmail or whatever, although that’s an option. I mean that with a clear enough picture of your preferences and biases and habits, someone can tailor their actions and information to your psychology and make you think whatever they want you to agree with.

Second, it assumes that you won’t ever commit a crime because crimes are bad things and you’re not a bad person. This overlooks the possibility of you being mistakenly accused while innocent, but more importantly it overlooks the possibility that the government will change into something that holds different moral values to yours. Even in the modern world we’ve seen places outlaw abortions, or criminalise homosexuality, or pass laws on what religions you’re allowed to follow. If that happens in your country and you find yourself on the wrong side of whatever arbitrary line they’ve now drawn, you may regret giving them so much information about you - information that lets them identify you, prove that you broke their new rules, and ruin your life in so many ways.

The default principal of any exchange with governments, businesses, or any entity taking your information should be to give as much information as is required for them to perform the operation you’re requesting of them, and no more - and wherever possible to only engage with those entities that you trust to have that information; a trust that they earn by a verified and unbroken track record of ethical and trustworthy behaviour.

A lot of the punchlines are “ha ha, aren’t they weird?”, which hits totally different if you’re the sort of person who the character is an obvious caricature of. Doubly so if the weirdness in question is associated with some form of neurodivergence. For some people - myself included - a lot of the laughs in that show feel very much like they’re laughing at you, not with you. It’s only funny if you identify more with the people on the other side of the joke.

Yes.

Very much an industry of two halves. Some companies absolutely do not care about you and will drive you to do more with less and for longer hours until you burn out, and then replace you with the next poor sucker. Offers will bend over backwards to look after their people and maintain a working environment where everyone gets a say and is happy and able to be at their best. Which one you get can be a total coin flip, and even sat talking to them in a job interview it’s sometimes easy to mistake one for the other.

From his own comment, he’s signing the NDA because it’s the only way to find out what Meta want, and he figures knowing is better than not knowing. At no point has he indicated that he’s going to work with them at all, and an NDA doesn’t give them control or any guarantee of cooperation.

£5 says he comes back and says “I can’t discuss details because of the NDA, but… no” and it goes no further.

It’s more, point out past employers’ flaws where it doesn’t look like an excuse for your own, or where you can use it to show that the reasons you left that employer totally won’t apply here because this place is better in exactly the ways you’re looking for.

Interviewers don’t mind you describing flaws in a company to explain why you left, if those flaws are real flaws. What they hate is when a candidate blames their failings on the company rather than honestly identify and take responsibility for their own shortcomings.

What that means is that if you’re going to say something bad about a former employer, keep it brief, stick to factual, provable things with minimal emotive content, and describe how that meant they’re a bad fit for you. If you can describe a way your employer did things badly, explain why you weren’t in a position to change it, and then describe a better way that you wish they’d do and that happens to line up with how your potential new employer does do things, that can be a good way to show you’ll fit in because you agree with their practices or management style or whatever it is.

Part of it will depend on what data you’re holding, and part will depend on who’s running the instance. A lot of people won’t be covered, but I’d wager there’s some here and there who need to consider it.

The EU is also working on Right To Repair legislation that iirc has something to say about reasonable prices for repair supplies and spare parts. In that case, even if only Apple-made batteries work, they’d still be affordable, or at least within a reasonable percentage of what they actually cost and not marked up enormously.

Parts of it may actually be required under EU law. GDPR requires that anyone holding data on EU citizens comply with certain things, including a request to delete certain kinds of data. The EU has shown themselves willing to go after sizeable corporations for violations; most Lemmy instance operators are much smaller. This should probably be addressed before people find themselves on the wrong end of lawsuits.

This is why Right To Repair is a big deal. Not just because it reduces waste by fixing what might have been thrown away, not just because it allows you to do what you want with the device that you supposedly own, and not just because it breaks the monopoly and requires pricing of repair services to actually be competitive - although all those things are important. It’s also because if a device can be repaired, some people will be encouraged to learn how to repair it, and in doing so they’ll learn a valuable problem-solving mindset. We need to be mindful of how we first introduce young people to technology to avoid this learned helplessness and instil the attitudes that will allow them to function when they’re adults and it’s now their job to look under the hood and make it all work.

A whole generation has been raised with tech that just works and if on the rare occasion it goes wrong, it goes very wrong and either needs IT/Customer Service/etc to fix it for you because the problem is very technical, or it’s just broken and you get a new one. This means they have no problem-solving skills because none of the problems they’ve faced were solvable, and they’re scared to get it wrong because getting it wrong breaks things in ways that are bad and expensive. Coming into an environment where trial and error is now not just ok, but expected, is a reversal of some deeply ingrained habits for them. That doesn’t mean they can’t learn, but it does make it a bit of a culture shock for them.