Shirasho

It means we have less insight on what they are doing with our passwords.

The difference being that the owners of the works in museums have given permission to view the content, and the people viewing the content are rarely trying to resell what they are seeing.

I have never had a phone that has successfully unlocked the first time using biometrics. I wouldn’t say it is a solved problem or a solution. There are also implications with law enforcement when using biometrics. They can’t force you to unlock something with a password, but they can forcefully unlock something with your fingerprint.

They treat you like a child with no self respect. They are awful.

It’s their right and all, but I don’t want to hear how their international sales have dropped and how profits are down.

I may be misunderstanding how it all works, but the venues choose the ticket service, not the artists.

Do NOT blame the devs for this. They are not the ones to decide the direction of the product or the priority of the tickets they work. Blame upper management for making these poor decisions and the product managers for being spineless and not pushing back.

There has been legal precedent that terms of use are not legally binding since they don’t expect customers to read it before clicking the I Agree button. They have made the agreements so long and put them in everything that they concluded there is no possible way anybody would ever read all of it for everything.

That’s the thing - you think it has a negative effect. It might, but we need real studies to back that up. Laws shouldn’t be made because of unsubstantiated feelings. If you want something meaningful to come out of these things you should advocate for unbiased mass studies.

Nobody wants to invest 2 months paycheck into hardware that the developer is going to drop support for in 6 months.

Hardware is too expensive for the average Joe to buy and those of us who can afford it are tired of being burned by companies that provide subpar service then drop support for the thing. Cool, bleeding edge tech means little if there is little use for it or if nobody can afford it.

For a brief moment I worked in that industry as a programmer. The whole point is not to find the most qualified candidate but to find the one that fits into the company culture the most in order to reduce turnover. These algorithms will throw away applications from people of color because they have “behaviors not in line with the company culture” or applications from disabled people because they would “not react properly to certain situations”.

Of course they aren’t explicitly rejecting these people, but the questions and answers on the tests for applications are specifically and painstakingly crafted to filter out these people without making it clear what type of person the question is trying to filter out.

This doesn’t necessarily have to do with the AI in question, but my point is that the entire hiring/firing process is totally fucked, and companies are constantly looking for ways to get around discrimination laws.