At my org, edge for all outlook links rolled out last week. Not only does it not let you use your default browser, half of the screen is taken up with a popup asking to make edge your default every time!
I’m in tech support, I’ve had several users hit by this in office programs as opening links via plugins to sites they need to be logged into would suddenly open a different browser which they weren’t logged into. None of them realized what was going on. That alone should cause for a lawsuit, since they’re changing defaults for reasons entirely unrelated to eg. preventing security risks.
Everyone hates this new feature at work. Now we have to close the extra side-chat bar in edge every time we click a link in Teams. This kind of feature will drive people to share links using any other program.
I swear… MS program managers are some kind of alien that don’t understand user experience at all
Yes sir. Wouldn’t want regular folks to be able to retain the value of their savings! Government’s restricted to being fiscally responsible instead of printing their way out of problems with the hidden tax on the poor that is inflation? Ridiculous!
Read about the great depression or the deflationary economics in Germany right before the Nazis took power. Deflation sucks, we already experienced it and we don’t need to try it out again.
It took me a long time to reach this conclusion. I love TOS, and the characters are cultural icons, but when I want to fanboy over the whole “philosophy” of Star Trek, I’m thinking of TNG every single time.
I’ll probably get wrecked in here for saying this,but I never liked TOS. It’s so campy and hokey. Even the movies with the original cast don’t interest me all that much. I respect them for paving the way for TNG, but I’ll never choose TOS over TNG.
I wouldn’t say they are related at all, at least in terms of how the TV comes off vs the movies even though the cast is the same. TOS TV show is not too dissimilar to the old school Batman show in it’s corniness. Not to that level of silliness, but they were contemporaries of each other when they aired on TV in the late 60s.
@Hazdaz@BeigeAgenda the hippie vibe was part of the general campy tone those days - see The Man from U. N. C. L. E., Rowan and Martin's Laugh In, That Was The Week That Was, or The Wild Wild West for other variations on that theme. Hi-tech, Steampunk, SciFi, variety, news spoofs - all had similar tone
Oh I get that was the tone of shows back then. Get Smart was another one. It’s just not my cup of tea for the most part.
Of course the irony is that I think shows (especially movies) these days are too serious and I almost wish they were a little more fun and playful like they were back in the 60s/70s. Just as long as they don’t go too silly.
I agree. TOS has some interesting characters and fun moments, but I just can’t get into like I get into TNG. TNG is a series I can watch start to finish and all the movies and then start right over and watch it all again. TOS is one I might re-watch every 5+ years to refresh my memory, but I’ll put it on exclusively while I’m doing something else so I don’t waste my attention. My Dad loves TOS and TNG, and regularly references TOS, expecting me to remember episode names and whole plot lines. Oops.
That’s actually why can rewatch TOS endlessly but TNG only occasionally. TOS is that light popcorn fare that’s entertaining but you don’t take very seriously. TNG is serious sci-fi that challenges the audience often with very difficult subject matter. The latter is objectively the better show but if I’m looking for something to throw on for casual fun, for me it’s TOS all the way.
I tried to go back and watch it as part of a kind of personal nerd pilgrimage. I just couldn’t get through it to save my life. Then I hit the beginning of TNG and was shocked, that was not what I remembered at all from all the reruns I saw growing up. I’m honestly still kind of shocked it lasted long enough to grow the beard.
I really think that can be said for a lot of shows. First few episodes, and sometimes the first few seasons don’t hit like the later ones. Simpsons, Seinfeld, TNG, Arrested Development and a lot of other shows were constantly on the cusp of getting canceled until they got their audience and the writers hit their stride with the story.
It happens so much to shows that we know ended up turning out good, that it always makes me wonder how many shows were canceled a few episodes or maybe a season or two sooner than they should have.
Season one of TNG was compared to TOS and TNG didn’t fare too well early on. The Naked Now? A copy of The Naked Time. Data trying to be human was compared to Spock. LaForge wasn’t like Scotty. Picard was stuck up and by the book compared to Kirk rushing into battle and brawling with aliens with his bare hands.
It wasn’t until the show developed into its own thing that it became great.
I love the first two seasons for their episodic adventure structure. But I also greatly appreciate the character driven structure of seasons 3+ and I definitely think the aesthetic changes for s3 were an unadulterated improvement.
Funny, didn’t people think that the first time? I mean it’s not like they didn’t know he was a 6 time bankrupted TV celebrity grifter back then either.
If I remember from my high school history class correctly, the concept of a president pardoning themself has never been tried before, but came into question at the end of the Nixon administration due to Nixon resigning due to the Watergate scandal and then behind pardoned by the Vice President Turned President as Gerald Ford was accused of a Quid Pro Quo with Nixon
Legal scholars are a bit divided on whether The Constitution allows a president to pardon themselves. But considering the question would eventually end up in front of a heavily stacked republican SCOTUS: He gets pardoned and all of this goes away
Which is why we need to make sure Biden wins next year. No matter how much of a lock it looks like, vote. And get all your friends to vote.
Them we all just pack up and give up on humanity, America is an odd place but electing a guy that’s, well, literally Trump?
Yeah there are a lot of people caught up in the culture war but trump has just done too much, especially after last time there would be an awful lot of people remembering the feeling when he won and how they regret wasting their vote 3rd party or staying home because they didn’t like Hilary
You must let the wheels of justice turn. If it’s good enough for mass murderers it’s good enough for this garbage pail kid. Innocent until proven guilty. Then bury him under Leavenworth.
Arraignment on these new charges is the day after tomorrow, then they’ll set a trial date. Because all the hearings have happened and there are no secret documents, it should happen a lot faster than March or May.
That’s not how grand juries work. They basically green light a real trial. He’s now in deep shit with several trials that have passed the grand jury stage.
Losing the upcoming cases will result in real punitive actions.
The major point is that these are actual crimes. Trump has never actually “gotten off the hook”. He loses civil trials left and right, but he pays money to make them go away.
You can’t do that with major crimes. Maybe for a vandalism offense you might pay a fine. These are major felonies and there’s three cases (and counting)!
This fat old man is going to die in house arrest. No, we will never put a president in jail, but he will not be free. You can’t make 70+ felonies go away.
I wish it was that easy, but nestle has taken almost 80% of global middleman positions in the food market, they have become a pseudo monopoly in the food industry.
Everywhere you look end stage capitalism is enshittifying itself. The neolibs, having insisted that There Is No Alternative, are confronted with their system in full and manifest self destruction.
The current version of the system is literally self destructing by destroying the ecosystem. It is also destroying its other external interface: human consciousness, but that is a more complicated discussion.
Not destroying the environment is as easy as researching less polluting and more productive methods, like nuclear fusion. The only thing left to do in that matter is not making it deficitary
Innovation is one of the main things that keep capitalism going, but state-supported or state-ignored monopolies prevent it from happening as people really have no other alternative apart from the monopoly company to buy goods and services
So thanks for providing a great example of the aggressively blinding grip of ideology over our ability to understand our reality. We’ve already broken the ecosphere. A nonexistent technology is not going to save us from the disaster that has already happened. Also the owners of the energy supply are aggressively defending their vastly profitable businesses from any threat to their profits. They’ve done quite well at that, see the comment from you.
The way I see it is this search for money won’t destroy the world completely, but it will probably end up with humans leading their own extinction event and taking lots of other species with us. The world will eventually heal many of its wounds… without us.
Yeah, sad thing is we are already signed up for the next 20 years, as in even if we stopped emitting everything tomorrow, we would still have +2°C in 20 years…
And how realistic is stopping everything tomorow?
+3°C… we would need to have a new coronavirus crisis every years, not just a new one, but stack them on top, in terms of emissions. Ofc you can’t have more then one global confinement at a time (doesn’t make sense to double confine someone) so that wouldn’t even work.
We aren’t locked in for the next twenty years, only the next ten years.
We could build a thousand RBMK like nuclear reactors in a decade and then suck out 50 ppm of CO2 out of the atmosphere in another decade.
Would cost $500B to $1T or so.
We just don’t really think global warming is serious enough to warrant an action plan at the scale of the Manhattan project, Apollo program or Messmer plan.
We’re not locked in for the next 20 years. Not for the next 10.
The carbon in the atmosphere is going to be there for the next millenium and the temperature won’t level out till the 2100s if we stopped all carbon emission right this second.
Furthermore, if we did stop all emissions right now, the planet would get 0.5-1.5 °C hotter within a year or two due to the end of the aerosol pollution cooling effect that’s been cutting the effects of carbon induced climate change in half this whole time.
This year is so hot because they put limitations on sulfur emissions from shipping boats in the Pacific. Those emissions were cooling the atmosphere, but the aerosol emissions (which that sulfur is one of) only last in the atmosphere for about 2 weeks before they’re rained out of the air.
It was taken out because the pollution was directly responsible for tens of thousands of deaths per year. If we need to geoengineer an aerosol to cool the planet, we can do better.
Deaths from increasing temperatures are estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands a year already, how many of those could the aerosols have prevented? Was that more or less than tens of thousands?
I’m not saying it can’t be done or it shouldn’t necessarily, I’m just trying to express why this decision happened at a political level. Politics only occasionally leads humanity to the logical course of action.
Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is a speculative technology at the moment.
Like, yes, we “can” do it, if you ignore all the materials and energy needed to perform that process. And that’s just in theory, in practice its bound to be far more difficult.
No matter how you put it, it’s easier to just… Not release the pollution in the first place. If it’s too difficult to stop polluting, it will certainly be too difficult to remove that pollution that has been already released. Entropy and all that.
Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is something we should only really start thinking about when the world already runs nearly entirely cleanly.
An Apollo scale program to extract carbon emissions from the atmosphere could be financed by the OECD countries without heavily impacting their economies.
Building a thousand nuclear plants with reduced safety requirements in a remote place would not run into NIMBY problems.
Stopping emissions globally would require Chinese political will, since they emit more than all of the OECD combined.
If you want China to produce even less, support protectionist policies in Western countries and/or tariff reductions for products that may prove they’ve been produced with renewables.
I think that there need to be a specific tipping point/trigger when everyone and their mother direct funding towards fixing the problem.until then the majority of people won’t simply care
The rich and powerful have to see very direct problems that affect them. Kind of like when social conservative politicians take an anti-LGBT position, then turns out their kid is trans, so then they pivot to being pro-LGBT in rhetoric so they can keep talking to their kid.
I’m genuinely curious at this point if that point even exists. Like, I’ve had legitimate conversations with multiple people and i’ve asked them “what would need to happen for you to believe in human’s causing climate change?” The answer is generally something along the lines of “I’m not sure it’s even possible for humans to have that big of an effect on the earth.”
I would imagine there are tons of people out there who think the same, people with VERY deep pockets and in equally powerful positions that would never change course on their money making machines. Literally the only way I see substantial change happening is if it becomes incredibly profitable.
The tipping point was going to be “our cheap labor is dying out and profits are going down”… except now with automation it’s going to be “our robots are breaking down and we need a few more experts to fix them”, so no need to care about 99% of the population.
A lot of those LCD games sucked, but every so often there would be a decent one. Glad your mom was able to get you a fun one.
Really, it isn’t so much about the technology as it is what you do with it. I did have a Gameboy, but I have a much older brother and I inherited his Merlin and I probably played it just as much.
My dad got me a GameBoy Pocket many years later. Still got it and still works. Was my pride and joy, even though GameBoys weren’t all the craze anymore by then.
I had the original, but the games were super expensive, so I had three of them: Tetris, Super Mario World and Batman, to my enjoyment as a kid, in that level of suckitude. Tetris was fun until I beat it every time. The other two were too hard for me. Also, Batman just sucked as a game.
By the time the GBC and then the Pocket came out, I was in college and “too old” for “kids games,” so I played “real” games on a computer. Never had an NES and never bought another Nintendo product until the Wii. Now I wish Nintendo would put out a modern version of the Wii.
Had a friend when I was a kid that Always had the lasted video games and systems. His grandparents bought him anything he wanted. He was a total asshole. He would throw taturms if he lost, resulting him destroying said system our games. But didn’t mater grandparents just would replace it. Hated that fucking kid, but he had all the latest games so always was hangings out there. He was a fat little kid too. His brother was cool though.
Never forget the night me and his brother playing the 11th Hour on the PC. Which was major because computer were fucking expensive. Anyway we are having a good time solving the puzzles when his fucking brother jealous we were having fun without him came over and pour coke on the computer and started breaking the disc we hadn’t gotten to yet.
Never again did we get to play that game and I started to hang out less and less with him. Thinking of it now don’t know why I did in the first place. But I got to play on systems I never would have another wise. Like the Virtual Boy and Sega CD.
I actually know this dude. His name is Bradley Cunningham. He lived a couple streets over and was my brother’s age when they were like 10 (I was 13). He was a whiny little bastard, but of course I went to hang out at his house because they had a pool and every NES game you could ever want to play. He was always 1st player and on the NES Max controller; everyone else had to take turns with each other, either on his janky classic controller or the NES Advantage (which, despite being great for arcade games, was obnoxious with most other games).
Bradley would always insist on getting his way. If he wasn’t winning or didn’t get to use the exact pool noodle he wanted to use like right when he wanted to use it, he’d cry out “DADD-EH!!!”, because he knew his dad would ask us kindly to go home because he was a shit parent who didn’t want to deal with the headache of putting out kid fires and oh wait that’s not Bradley Cunningham, sure looks like him though.
Someone much smarter than me once wrote that everyone thinks of their outgroup as “normies”: Catholics think of non-Catholics as “normies”, and “goyim” is just the Hebrew word for “normies”.
I just want to say: everyone in my outgroup sucks.
They don’t like it when you pat them on the head or rub their belly. Like; they’ll tell you their dog died, their fiancé left them, and they have to fight for custody of the kids - and they expect you to use words to comfort them?! Words. Absolute insanity, I tell you! In-sa-ni-ty!
No matter what app it is, if employers require one to be used on a smartphone, they are legally obligated to provide you with a work phone. If they refuse, they are legally obligated to provide reimbursement for your personal mobile plan. This can be as simple as $5 or $10 added monthly to a paycheck, or as detailed as actual usage down to the kilobyte.
Even if it’s as simple as clocking in and out. If they won’t provide a phone or reimburse, they must have some other method to complete the task. Whether it be a computer or paper. Failing that, they are not upholding the law of providing you tools necessary to complete your job. Which means if they terminate you for any of the above under “not able to do your job”, it is retaliation for you requiring them to do their job. You could potentially win a suit against them.
Reimbursement for a mobile plan? If I need to use a special authenticator app to login to my work computer, and the app is fully offline (and I only need to use it at the office where I have Wi-fi anyway, if I needed it, but I don’t), then what does a mobile plan have to do with anything? I could use it on a phone without a SIM card, or a tablet that can’t have one.
My examples are the common scenarios. Apps typically use data. Even if in your case data isn’t used, your employer is still required to provide you with the tools necessary to complete your job. It’s as simple as that.
You said “No matter what app it is” which is the point of my confusion. So you actually meant “apps that use data”, that’s fair enough, thank you for the clarification.
your employer is still required to provide you with the tools necessary to complete your job
Yeah, that’s what I thought, that the employer is required to provide a work phone if they require the usage of an app. But you are saying they can refuse as long as they reimburse data, which doesn’t even help if the app doesn’t use data. How is that “refusal of a legal obligation” working?
they are legally obligated to provide you with a work phone. If they refuse
This is the part that I’m not getting. So are they legally obligated or are they allowed to refuse like you say. It can’t be both ways.
Just look at it as wear and tear. Doesn’t matter how miniscule it may be it’s still eating up your storage and battery life in addition to battery charge. Sure you could charge at work too for battery charge but as miniscule as it is it’s still killing your battery life.
Also, don’t give corporations any leeway because they WILL take advantage of the employee given the chance. For every single rule and regulation that helps the employee someone had to spill blood to achieve it.
That’s what I think, which is why I’m asking icedterminal where did they get the info that the employer can refuse to provide a phone, it doesn’t seem right to me.
It doesn’t matter if it’s apps that use data or apps that don’t use data. If your employer requires you to install an app on your personal phone, you can refuse. It is your legal right. If you choose to exercise your legal rights, your employer must provide you with an alternative method that doesn’t involve your personal phone. Whatever they choose.
If you agree to installing a work related app on your personal phone, you must be compensated. If they refuse to compensate, you’re back to square one. They must provide you alternatives.
If your employer refuses to supply you with the tools to complete your job and/or refuse to compensate personal phone use for work related reasons, they are breaking the law. If they fire you for exercising your rights, it’s unlawful termination.
Here’s an example: My employer started requiring 2FA for the computer logins. They wanted me to install an app by Cisco. I said no. You can provide a locked down phone that can be used for the sole purpose of 2FA. They declined as that isn’t in their budget and “unnecessary”. They later came back with a little keychain that’s bound to my account. I press a button on the keychain and get the 2FA code. I can do my job and they did their job and gave me the tools to do so.
Ok, so it’s not that they can refuse to provide a device, it’s that if you voluntarily agree to use your personal device, then they have to provide compensation (for the data, etc.). Your original comment said they can refuse to provide a device, hence my confusion.
No, they can still refuse to provide a device as my original comment states. Since my employer refused to do so, they came up with an alternative without any additional input from me. They completely side stepped the app requirement by using a little key chain once they reached out to Cisco. Your employer has options. They have to find out what works best to make sure you can do the job they have hired you to do.
My employer provides us with a “tech allowance” as a bonus every month
It’s not enough to buy a barely functional work laptop, but you can “buy a laptop” through them, and then forfeit the bonus until it’s “paid off”
I’m kinda awful with money, so I pretty much need every cent I can get. That bonus goes towards keeping my head above water in the debt trap I’m in.
So my “work computer” which requires their spyware antivirus to be installed is a virtual machine. It’s been two years and no complaints so far. Great antivirus.
That goes into the work profile of my android phone and that profile of switched off after clocking out. Simple as that, I don’t have to carry two phones and get my peace after hours. And my company respects my free time which also helps s lot.
It is wild to me, even as I have one work app on my phone. It’s only there because it allows me to clock in and out, and my personal phone is significantly higher spec’d than the work provided phone.
Even so, I cannot be contacted via this app and cannot perform work with it outside of the geo-restricted area.
Right now I am on vacation, my work phone stays at home with an empty battery.
They still have my private number if it is an absolute disaster at work and they need my help, but untill sunday evening I won’t even charge my work phone, let alone check it for messages/calls.
Work apps stay on the work phone, the ONLY exception to that rule I will ever make is work MFA apps.
But I’d sooner get a new separate phone for that if I don’t get a company phone.
Re MFA, I’ve been using a hardware key and it’s so much better. I don’t need my phone for a single work related thing anymore, so I can just ignore it until breaks.
I have slack in it, because I don’t like walking around with two phones, but I have it configured to stop notifying after hours. Also worth noting that I do have a phone from the company, it’s just that I find it cumbersome to walk around with two phones.
Same here. O365 and ticketing app.
O365 is shut up during off-time and the ticketing system doesnt have notifications.
I would probably take a 2nd phone but the hassle of keeping track of and charging both is too inconvenient for me.
I have two phones. A personal one and one provided by my company. I like being able to turn off my work phone when on holiday, etc and keep my personal life separate.
I do know a lot of people who sold their personal phones when given a work phone and use it for both. Saves some money I guess but no thanks.
I also know people who have two phones but install all the work apps on their personal phones to make it easier for them. No thanks!
I’m one of the “company-provided-phone-only” folks. Thankfully, I work for a pretty decent employer who has never abused that in the nearly 10 years I’ve worked there. But I realize that’s a pretty rare privilege.
For me it is a convenience thing – I spend a lot of time working from home and sometimes it’s nice to just be able to grab my phone and join a meeting while I’m sitting on the couch or w/e without needing to go over to my home office room. My team almost never does anything outside of work hours, so it’s not like I’m getting pinged or anything. In the rare situation where I get some notifications from a chat channel outside of working hours (usually someone in a different time zone) then I can just turn off work apps in Android and it goes away.
lemmy.world
Top