> It was simple - I priced it properly, and I didn't have to pay another year of taxes, insurance, repairs, maintenance, and worry, only to have to lower the price anyway to get rid of it. A couple of the other homeowners were angry with me about that, but that was their problem.
I think you just explained partly the reason behind why a small number of owners can drive the prices up. But these are usually private owners. Whenever I see bank sales, they're more like flash sale and done.
Those who can afford to sit on the property trying to obtain a higher price will do it. Other owners will look at that and try to keep the price high with the illusory hope that they can also make that much money. Individual owners can suffer from FOMO and are influenced by success stories, so ask a high price hoping to capture as much of the value as possible.
I saw it in action when I bought my house. The seller saw his neighbor selling the house a year earlier for [princely sum] so he jumped to put his house on the market for [princely sum +20%]. The whole neighborhood was following the same playbook, looking at who sold and raising the bar. After a year with that house on the market I became interested and in a 6 month process I ended up buying the house for [princely sum -20%].
None of the neighbors know how much he got, only know how much he asked. A similar house 50m away is still up for sale for even higher price than than the listed price for mine. They can afford to sit on it for a while because the extra money they hope for covers the taxes and upkeep tenfold or more.
> If it's so easy to make an unrecoverable and catastrophic mistake, it's a tool that's too dangerous to use on the daily.
Shift+Del and rm -rf don't have any guardrails around them. In tech you are surrounded by footguns and bear traps. MS made it that much worse by wrapping these in dark patterns that may change without notice but the logic that "dangerous things should be prohibited" is a perfectly good way to end up living in an environment where someone else curates what you can and cannot do. For your protection of course.
A tool isn't dangerous because you can make an unrecoverable and catastrophic mistake (you can make one with a kitchen knife and we still use them every day). It's truly dangerous if it can and does act against your wishes, interests, and reasonable expectations like OneDrive did.
The article is accompanied by a TikTok video I can't scrub through so I can't tell why it's not possible to go to OneDrive's recycle bin and recover the lost data.
Here it is really not a "footgun" that can shoot you accidentally, it is really volontary awful dark patterns.
You say delete my "onedrive" storage content, why on earth someone sane should expect that Microsoft will also delete the data one your computer, that you never asked to be sent to OneDrive in the first place.
The comment I replied to suggested a generalization that "a too that allows you to make grave mistakes is too dangerous to use. We're surrounded by tools in real life and computers which allow you to make major mistakes (ever run a copy/sync tool like robocopy and others with source monitoring, and someone was deleting from the source after seeing the copy at the destination?). So I don't agree with their generalization. Tools aren't dangerous because of what they can do or because they allow you to make mistakes.
But this wasn't a mistake, or at least not an unprovoked one. The user did nothing wrong. They operated under reasonable assumptions established by decades of computer tools. This was a user who didn't get cut by the knife's blade but by its handle. The tool was configured to operate against the user's interests, wishes, and reasonable expectations. This isn't "a dangerous tool" this is a developer who weaponized a tool. The danger is the practice of misleading the user. MS took a pipe and made it a pipe bomb, the solution isn't to declare pipes to dangerous to use.
> why on earth someone sane should expect that Microsoft will also delete the data one your computer, that you never asked to be sent to OneDrive in the first place
From a reasonable user perspective of course it makes no sense. If you investigate from a technical perspective, knowing how the tool works, it "works as intended". OD Backup is not backup, it's storage. That's the first trick MS pulls. OD didn't back up your data, it moved it to the cloud and didn't tell you. This is the second trick MS pulls. Disabling the "backup" means disabling the storage of your single copy of the data. This isn't a trick, it's just the level of competence at MS.
> OD didn't back up your data, it moved it to the cloud and didn't tell you.
Now I think that I understand your mistake. You think that onedrive moves the data to the cloud, and so obviously losing the cloud version makes you lose the file.
But it is not what is happening from my understanding, and here is the very dark pattern:
- The file is and stays in your computer. (Actually OneDrive doesn't know how to store more than what you have in local copy... totally miserable).
- So it is just a "copy" that is sent to the cloud.
- When you delete your files in their cloud (in the sense of getting ride of your storage there, and not only files), only then "OneDrive" actively goes to delete your files in your local disk!
I agree, OneDrive is very similar to `rm -rf`. But I think that is a bad thing for a file sync service to be.
It's worse, because it runs without the users explicit knowledge or consent, and it lacks the implicit guardrails `rm -rf` has (in that most people who use Linux and the terminal are at least literate).
> MS made it that much worse by wrapping these in dark patterns that may change without notice
> It's truly dangerous if it can and does act against your wishes, interests, and reasonable expectations.
Do you really not consider the first to be an example of the second?
> Shift+Del and rm -rf don't have any guardrails around them.
Shift+Del asks for confirmation. I would expect OneDrive to do at least that much before deleting files off the local machine, even if they're recoverable.
> Do you really not consider the first to be an example of the second?
I think too many people got the impression that I'm defending OD and can't get out of that trench. My point is that a generic tool being able to do dangerous things isn't a high enough bar to say don't use it (often). A tool being able to do dangerous things in the manner I described above is a completely different devil. The "how" you end up doing a dangerous thing is what should be punished.
I want to be able to do whatever I want with my computer and my data and not have someone define what's "too dangerous" for me to use. But what happened here wasn't what the users wanted, or could reasonably expect to happen. That's the key.
> Shift+Del asks for confirmation
I'm sure OD also asked for some confirmation. By that time it's too late, you're confirming what you think will happen, not what will actually happen. When you confirm shift+del you know what you are confirming. When you confirm OD's dialog you're confirming under misleading assumptions.
I never asserted that. I asserted that if a tool is that dangerous, it shouldn't be used on a daily basis. I stand by that. Use it if it solves a problem for you, but intentionally every time, not as a matter of habit or in the background with automation.
> It's truly dangerous if it can and does act against your wishes, interests, and reasonable expectations.
> I asserted that if a tool is that dangerous, it shouldn't be used on a daily basis
Agree to disagree. I will repeat, we are surrounded by dangerous tools that we use on a daily basis. Clearly the "danger" part is not the criteria that defines if or how often you should use the tool.
> OneDrive meets those criteria.
Correct. But those are my criteria, and I believe they are the ones that carry my argument. Your criteria was "is dangerous" which is not enough to carry the weight of your conclusion.
Correct, I'm just saying that I think your criteria supports my opinion. As you say, we disagree about this. Fair enough. I'm not telling anyone not to use OneDrive. We all make that sort of decision for ourselves.
All I'm saying is that OneDrive hosed me in a terrible way, so I'm no longer willing to risk using it. Particularly since it doesn't really address any need I have and if I did have such a need, there are better tools (for me) available.
The other dangerous tools you've mentioned haven't ever burned me.
I want to make this very clear, my point is about how we define a “dangerous” tool. It’s not what it can do, it’s how it does it. The real danger is in an untrustworthy tool, in fooling users like OD did.
Options are not a guardrail. Documented options that operate intuitively and consistently are the guardrail.
This is where OD failed by MS's design, it didn't operate intuitively and consistently with almost any other computer tool, and didn't document the behavior properly in a way that the user can take advantage of the knowledge.
> Whatever the initial problem was is likely to still present after reboot
You only know this after the reboot. Reboot to fix the issue and if it comes back then you know you have to dig deeper. Why sink hours of effort into fixing a random bit flip? I'll take the opposite position and say that especially for consumer devices most issues are caused by some random event resulting in a soft error. They're very common and if they happen you don't "troubleshoot" that.
Mold can stick to some of the furniture even if it's not a large, visible spot. When mold developed on the wall behind your large wardrobe there's a good chance that the wooden back of the dressed caught a bit of it. You move to a new place and carry the spores with you. At worst the new place also has a humidity problem and the spores you brought accelerate the mold development process.
Anything that sat around a mold infested area is something you should look at closely, at least to proactively give it a thorough scrub and dry in a well ventilated area before bringing in the house.
An air filer with a real HEPA filter will help catch airborne spores but if you already have mold growth anywhere in the room you need to take care of that before blowing air all around.
I don't think there's a one size fits all here. If you don't go out of your comfort zone and "do more" you may never get a promotion because you're seen as average. But it's also true that if you work hard and constantly deliver you may still never get the promotion because you're seen as critical where you are.
You might be disappointed either way. Like any recipe, there are many ingredients needed to pull it off. Delivering results, solving your boss' or boss' boss problems, doing it visibly, having support from above, doing it at the right time, etc. all contribute.
> there will likely be people who want to play Final Fantasy 6 and Pokémon Silver for as long as computers are around
Is Final Fantasy 6 seeing a lot on new players today? Old games are played more by the people who enjoyed them when they were new. Even the landmark games are easily forgotten and younger players will never bother when they have so many modern choices.
The modern choices are accompanied by ads and gambling, to the point that it wouldn't be surprising if Final Fantasy 6 was seeing an uptick. Go enjoy your "modern" games all you like, but it doesn't always matter if a games community is growing, especially if it's not one requiring connectivity to blast ads and skins at people.
The Titan submersible implosion features a lot on HN, and almost nobody here built such a contraption, or took one to the bottom of the ocean, or imploded. Naming a gaming storefront which may sell an old game doesn't answer the question whether young people want to play it.
My reasonable baseline assumption is that almost no young player is going to jump to play a 30+ year old game. I'll be generous here and not name things like Frogger or worse, The Oregon Trail. But give a kid who has seen modern games a copy of Diablo, or SimCity 2000, or even newer things like or GoldenEye 007 or System Shock and watch the "excitement". And these are the heavy hitters.
A lot of these oldies didn't age well even for the people who loved them way back when. It's hard to get young players excited about them. Very few oldies could stand on their own today.
> in EU you might have the police knocking at your door for some reasons you don't have in the USA
Is there any significant difference where the law gives you fewer rights in the EU in this regard? Speaking of knocking, it's very unlikely that in the EU some SWAT team will knock down your door because someone anonymously told them you're dangerous, kill you, and suffer no consequences.
> but because in the USA you have some very strong constitutional rights that are really hard to bypass
Other than the right to have guns, which keeps everyone happy and gives the SWAT team a legitimate reason to go in guns blazing, kill you, and get away with it, I'm having a hard time finding a right that isn't routinely subject to some exception. Guaranteed when the ultimate authority on the constitution is staffed by corrupt yes-men.
Is this common? Airport scanners are usually face scanners. Iris scanners are almost always for employees with access to critical areas, not for travelers. I know Doha and Singapore airports use iris scanners at the security check. It's probably a growing trend, haven't seen any in the EU, is it already common in the US?
Iris scanners are not hard to implement from a few meters in a controlled environment like immigration.
I would assume Iris scanners are normal - but I couldn't find anything to corroborate that for immigration control in NZ (legally they can, and I thought the equipment did, but I couldn't verify).
The reason was moving from the CE kernel to the NT kernel between WP7 and WP8. This was supposed to make developers’ lives much easier when porting Windows 8 apps. The minimum hardware requirement had to be bumped and old WP7 devices could never meet them.
General rules don’t apply to superpowers or the countries they protect. China, US, Russia get to do whatever their military or economic power affords them, unprovoked aggression, war crimes, terror acts.
There are general rules against war crimes and they still happen day after day, under flimsy excuses. Bombed a hospital or a wedding party? There was a suspected terrorist there. White phosphorus over civilians? It was just for the smoke screen. Overthrew a government overseas? Freedom for those poor people.
Right but "Don't kidnap/assassinate the enemy leaders" is often a good policy even when nobody will enforce that rule on you by force.
For example if your country is subject to a terror bombing campaign, it's very tempting to assassinate the one leader who had the power/respect/authority to order the attacks to start but often they're also the only leader who can order the attacks to stop
In the 1970s/1980s presumably the UK could have had IRA leaders Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness assassinated. But it sure turned out to be useful, in the late 1990s peace process, that the IRA had identifiable, living leaders who could engage in negotiation, sign an agreement, and get the bomb makers to stop making bombs.
The definition is probably not very precise. They started a war of aggression and every other country is tiptoeing around them. Iraq was also a regional power and got a very different treatment. So the “power” line isn’t so clear.
China on the other hand doesn’t get visibly involved in almost any remote conflict and they’re obviously a (if not the) superpower.
Russia has neither industrial nor economic base to project power outside of its sphere of influence. The only reason why everyone tiptoes around them is because they’re world’s gas station that attacked world’s bread basket. And largest stockpile of nukes.
I think you just explained partly the reason behind why a small number of owners can drive the prices up. But these are usually private owners. Whenever I see bank sales, they're more like flash sale and done.
Those who can afford to sit on the property trying to obtain a higher price will do it. Other owners will look at that and try to keep the price high with the illusory hope that they can also make that much money. Individual owners can suffer from FOMO and are influenced by success stories, so ask a high price hoping to capture as much of the value as possible.
I saw it in action when I bought my house. The seller saw his neighbor selling the house a year earlier for [princely sum] so he jumped to put his house on the market for [princely sum +20%]. The whole neighborhood was following the same playbook, looking at who sold and raising the bar. After a year with that house on the market I became interested and in a 6 month process I ended up buying the house for [princely sum -20%].
None of the neighbors know how much he got, only know how much he asked. A similar house 50m away is still up for sale for even higher price than than the listed price for mine. They can afford to sit on it for a while because the extra money they hope for covers the taxes and upkeep tenfold or more.
reply