Indie iOS app developer with a passion for SwiftUI
USPS’ website does this, sort of.
If their text service is down it’ll let you know and just skip the 2FA process even though normally they offer an option to get the code via email.
The fact that they do this is bad enough, the fact that this happens so often that I’ve seen this at least a dozen times is even worse.
You’re right that a lot of Terms of Service documents and similar agreement documents have language that reserves the right to modify those terms.
At the same time just because something is in the terms doesn’t mean it can stand the test of adjudication and terms as well as changes are often challenged in court with success.
Unity is in a particular tricky situation because the clause that governed modifications in their last ToS explicitly gives the user the option to pass on modifications that adversely affects them and stick with the old terms:
Unity may update these Unity Software Additional Terms at any time for any reason and without notice (the “Updated Terms”) and those Updated Terms will apply to the most recent current-year version of the Unity Software, provided that, if the Updated Terms adversely impact your rights, you may elect to continue to use any current-year versions of the Unity Software (e.g., 2018.x and 2018.y and any Long Term Supported (LTS) versions for that current-year release) according to the terms that applied just prior to the Updated Terms (the “Prior Terms”). The Updated Terms will then not apply to your use of those current-year versions unless and until you update to a subsequent year version of the Unity Software (e.g. from 2019.4 to 2020.1). If material modifications are made to these Terms, Unity will endeavor to notify you of the modification. If a modification is required to comply with applicable law, the modification will apply notwithstanding this section. Except as explicitly set forth in this paragraph, your use of any new version or release of the Unity Software will be subject to the Updated Terms applicable to that release or version. You understand that it is your responsibility to maintain complete records establishing your entitlement to Prior Terms.
You can still do this if you use https://www.shodan.io/
It’ll let you find IoT devices and cameras connected to the internet if you know what to search for and an alarming amount of them are locked behind an admin/admin login.
I advise against nosying around because there’s a near 100% chance that it’s illegal to do so in your jurisdiction.
Oh wow, they really closed it down huh?
Not too long ago you were able to change it.
This dumbing things down to prevent customers from fucking themselves over and using up CS resources is getting ridiculous.
Say you need to change some settings but your modem/router isn’t online then you’re SOOL.
Cox, who uses the same gateway, is even worse. They won’t even allow you to enable legacy mode (802.11b) for IoT devices that cheaped out on WiFi cards, not even on a separate network and their customer service can’t enable it either.
I dread moving into a Cox region where there’s no fiber competitor available.
Agreed.
Hold them in contempt of court and let them spend a week in jail all expenses paid.
They’re just trying to run out the clock so that, come election time, they’ll throw their hands up in the air and go “Welp, guess we’ll have to use the old map”.
Having a special master draw up a map is great in theory, until SCOTUS stays the lower ruling and drawn map and decides to not rule on the case until after elections (if they even were inclined to rule in favor of a fair map to begin with).
Cue the nuclear shills that will handwave away any legitimate concern with wishful thinking and frame the discussion as solely pro/anti fossil, conveniently pretending that renewables don’t exist.
ETA:
Let’s look at some great examples of handwaving and other nonsense to further the nuclear agenda.
Here @danielbln@lemmy.world brings up a legitimate concern about companies not adhering to regulation and regulators being corrupt/bought *cough… Three Mile Island cough*, and how to deal with that:
So uh, turns out the energy companies are not exactly the most moral and rule abiding entities, and they love to pay off politicians and cut corners. How does one prevent that, as in the case of fission it has rather dire consequences?
So of course the answer to that by @Carighan@lemmy.world is a slippery slope argument and equating a hypothetical disaster with thousands if not millions of victims and areas being uninhabitable for years to come, with the death of a family member due to faulty wiring in your home:
Since you can apply that logic to everything, how can you ever build anything? Because all consequences are dire on a myopic scale, that is, if your partner dies because a single electrician cheaped out with the wiring in your building and got someone to sign off, “It’s not as bad as a nuclear disaster” isn’t exactly going to console them much.
At some point, you need to accept that making something illegal and trying to prosecute people has to be enough. For most situations. It’s not perfect. Sure. But nothing ever is. And no solution to energy is ever going to be perfect, either.
Then there’s the matter of misleading statistics and graphs.
Never mind the fact that the amount of victims of nuclear disasters is underreported, under-attributed and research is hampered if not outright blocked to further a nuclear agenda, also never mind that the risks are consistently underreported, lets leave those contentious points behind and look at what’s at hand.
Here @JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works shows a graph from Our World in Data that is often thrown around and claims to show “Death rates by unit of electricity production”:
Seems shocking enough and I’m sure in rough lines, the proportions respective to one another make sense to some degree or another.
The problem however is that the source data is thrown together in such a way that it completely undermines the message the graph is trying to portray.
According to Our World in Data this is the source of the data used in the graph:
Death rates from energy production is measured as the number of deaths by energy source per terawatt-hour (TWh) of electricity production.
Data on death rates from fossil fuels is sourced from Markandya, A., & Wilkinson, P. (2007).
Data on death rates from solar and wind is sourced from Sovacool et al. (2016) based on a database of accidents from these sources.
We estimate deaths rates for nuclear energy based on the latest death toll figures from Chernobyl and Fukushima as described in our article here: https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima
We estimate death rates from hydropower based on an updated list of historical hydropower accidents, dating back to 1965, sourced primarily from the underlying database included in Sovacool et al. (2016). For more information, see our article: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Fossil fuel numbers are based on this paper which starts out by described a pro-nuclear stance, but more importantly, does a lot of educated guesstimating on the air-pollution related death numbers that is straight up copied into the graph.
Sovacool is used for solar and wind, but doesn’t have those estimates and is mainly limited to direct victims.
Nuclear based deaths is based on Our World in Data’s own nuclear propaganda piece that mainly focuses on direct deaths and severely underplays non-direct deaths.
And hydropower bases deaths is based on accidents.
So they mix and match all kinds of different forms of data to make this graph, which is a no-no. Either you stick to only accidents, only direct deaths or do all possible deaths that is possibly caused by an energy source, like they do for fossil fuels.
Not doing so makes the graph seem like some kind of joke.
Most doxxers don’t technically release the information, rather they’ve acquired it and point others to where they’ve acquired it or simply disseminate it further.
That’s what I’m saying. In most cases the doxxer isn’t the one who originally provided the info, but rather someone who has found the information online via a Google search or something similar.
Only if there’s a risk at incriminating yourself, and if it’s not immediately apparent how you’d run that risk (e.g. you’re a witness that doesn’t have a direct relation to the crime at hand) you’d have to motivate how it could be incriminating.
Isn’t that a little bit of circular reasoning?
If I doxx someone online then it gets indexed by Google, if someone then Google’s the information it stops being doxxing?
I’d assume most doxxing isn’t done by someone who has unique firsthand knowledge (e.g. “Oh I know John, he lives on so and so road”) and instead is done by finding the information online whether via Google or a different public source.
At least in the US, where a ridiculous amount of private information is deemed “public”.
Apparently if you try to use the USB port it’ll stop after having printed 20 or so pages, telling you you need to setup WiFi and install their bloatware app.
The US can look at how other countries, that don’t outright provide free education, do it instead of reinventing the wheel.
Getting rid of the discharge protection is only a small part of it.
It’s more important to set a legal maximum for college tuition for accredited institutions.
Then make any subsidies and funds contingent being accredited.
Lastly make federal loans contingent on enrollment to accredited institutions, with the additional benefit of being able to cap the loan amount at a level correlated to the legal maximum tuition (not to be confused with setting at the tuition level because living expenses need to be taken into account as well).
Make the interest rate sub 1%, because the government shouldn’t profit off of you as it is a service and do away with private middle men that administer the loans, instead establishing a special loan administration agency.
This will have as effect that institutions either get in line or lose all government funds and a significant portion of enrollments.
If you then also manage to uphold a uniform quality level that you regularly inspect at the accredited institutions, you’ll end up with a clear, affordable choice of quality education v. unknown quality education that may or may not be a huge waste of non-publicly provided money.
ETA:
You can even take it a step further and follow more examples from abroad in terms of acceptance.
Where you aim to get to a situation that everyone that applies with the pre-requisite prior education credentials, gets accepted.
The way this is often done abroad is with a centralized application process managed by the government, in which you indicate your top 3 preferred colleges, the portal verifies your prior education (as it’s centrally registered) and then enrolls you in order of preference.
For some studies, like law school, med school and psychology they’ll have more applicants than available spots, and in those cases it’s decided by lottery with slightly weighted chances based on your grade average.
The end result is that the vast majority of people automatically get accepted and the ones that don’t get in via the lottery are almost guaranteed to be placed the following year.
This solves the whole minority/legacy/etc. acceptance debacle, makes applying for schools less like applying for a job with writing essays and stuffing your resume with a bunch of extracurriculars and in the process makes the accredited institutions even more attractive compared to the potential hold outs that keep doing things the old fashioned way.
You don’t know Some Software Corp and their world famous website somesoftwarecorp.com?
But for iOS you’re forced to use Xcode for implementing certain things like permissions, build and upload.
You can do all that via VSCode as well if you so desire.
Permissions, configurations, etc. are essentially all just XML files and can be edited as such, building, running in simulator and uploading can all be done via CLI.
And if you’re not comfortable doing it via the terminal in VSCode, you can also find some extensions.
Personally as a native dev I don’t know why you’d want to of course, but to each their own.
I think you might be misunderstanding what this does.
You did a search for symbol references that contain “User” ignoring cases.
When you do a search for symbol references this way, Xcode will return two things:
And it did just that.
The first three .swift files show references to symbols that contain “User”.
The forth one, User.swift, is in and of itself a symbol that matches the query and has symbols inside itself.
The last one UserViewModel.swift is in itself a symbol as well and all the parts that are nested within that you’ve annotated with underscores and question marks, serve to give you context about the symbol “UserViewModel”, hence the ellipses.
It’s essentially telling you “Hey I’ve found this symbol UserViewModel, it starts with a var named username, has a bunch of stuff following that (i.e. …) then has an extension, then some more stuff (i.e. …) and then ends”.
Without knowing what’s inside UserViewModel.swift I can’t tell if it goofed with giving you a typical declaration, but that doesn’t change the fact that its trying to give you context about a valid search result, the symbol UserViewModel, so that you can figure out if that’s the one you’re looking for.
Keep in mind that variables are considered symbols as well, but in this instance I don’t think that’s what happened here, otherwise it would’ve been marked with a P instead of a C.
If this is not desired behavior then I suggest you switch from “Containing” to “Matching Word” or instead consider using the search bar at the bottom of the Symbol Navigator.
Another option, if you’re searching while going through code, is to right click on the symbol in your code and click Find > Find Selected Symbol in Workspace.
Lastly it might be an idea to go over the Xcode documentation as a refresher. This would be a good starting point.
That said, Apple clearly feels that things can be improved by clarifying, because in the current Xcode beta they’ve changed the option label from References to Symbols (and added a few more options).
Most of these services are US-centric because a lot of the necessary records to provide the information isn’t public in many countries outside of the US.
Birth records, death records, marriage records, divorce records, voting records, criminal records, etc. is considered public information in much of the US. Even address information can be found publicly and immigration records become available to the public after a certain time.
In a lot of countries, especially in many European countries, these are hard to access for people that aren’t the subject of these records, if accessible at all.
For example while court records are public in much of Europe, often times the names of private persons are censored because it’s not deemed necessary to know who the parties are to be able to check if the courts make fair decisions.
This automatically excludes criminal and divorce information from disseminating into the public.
Some countries will make some records public once the subject of those records have passed for X amount of years, but that’s still pretty rare.
As such services like these have limited use outside the United States.
@mrmanager@lemmy.today was talking about European companies doing fine despite strong unions in Europe and there being a lack of companies toppling over due to the strong unions.
They actually undersold it, because in many Western-European countries everyone benefits from union negotiations, even people that aren’t members of a union because the collective bargaining agreements unions manage to negotiate will affect everyone working in the relevant industry by virtue of laws deferring to those collective bargaining agreements.
You in turn decided to reframe the discussion at hand from companies doing well to unemployment numbers and not just general unemployment numbers, but youth unemployment numbers because you felt it would serve your argument best.
But if you look at the trends for unemployment then the story isn’t as bleak as you’d make it out to be.
For starters general unemployment averages under 6% with only two countries being above 10% (and below 15%).
Average youth unemployment sits at 13.9% with a hand full over 20%.
However, both general and youth unemployment are on a steady downwards trend since 2013.
One exception to this trend for general unemployment is during the pandemic, where it shows a bump and for youth unemployment there’s an additional minor bump in 2022, which suggests a correlation with the influx of refugees from Ukraine.
This is the European source on these statistics.
There will always be a higher unemployment rate in the EU compared to the US, especially when it comes to youth unemployment.
This lies mainly in the fact that most European countries have a civil registry system that automatically keeps track of certain data, unemployment being one of them, whereas in the US this data is collected by the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics by conducting a survey of roughly 60,000 households.
Another factor is a difference in definitions. A good example is the one from the website of the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Garrett is 16 years old, and he has no job from which he receives any pay or profit. However, Garrett does help with the regular chores around his parents’ farm and spends about 20 hours each week doing so.
Lisa spends most of her time taking care of her home and children, but she helps in her husband’s computer software business all day Friday and Saturday.
Both Garrett and Lisa are considered employed.
Neither of them would be considered employed in most European countries. There are other such discrepancies, for example the US doesn’t include people under 16, whereas Europe looks at 15-24 for youth unemployment.
And then there’s the cultural difference between the two markets about when people are expected to start working and subsequently the jobs that will be available.
Which makes sense. Companies still need people, but if it’s more expensive to get low-end workers you just won’t hire entry level workers unless they’ve proven themselves beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Your hypothesis is quite lacking.
As stated, the trends have been going down for a decade now, if your hypothesis was true we’d see an upwards trend.
Additionally, these labor protections, including protections against being laid off, have been around for decades, your hypothesis doesn’t offer an explanation why, despite these protections, unemployment is going down.
Also, minimum wage, as is often paid for these kinds of jobs, is lower in most EU countries than in many US states, making it comparably cheaper to hire those kind of jobs in Europe than it is in the US, your hypothesis doesn’t explain why, despite this, the unemployment rate is higher in Europe than it is in the US.
In short, your hypothesis nor the unemployment rate is relevant to what @mrmanager@lemmy.today was positing, so lets refocus to the topic at hand: the lack of companies toppling over like domino bricks despite the copious amounts of employee protection facilitated by strong unions.
Perhaps afterwards, we can talk about the lack of landlords, corporate or otherwise, going bankrupt despite the strong tenant protections as well as the lack of companies selling merchandise to consumers pulling out of the market despite the strong consumer protections, and so and so forth.
And then, maybe, just maybe, we can afterwards all come to the conclusion that these QoL improvements are attainable without some kind of economic doom scenario.
The scandal didn’t lie in following court orders, it lied in the marketing and the fact that the French ToS lacked any nuance to indicate that it would even be a possibility that ip would be logged.
Furthermore, even when dealt with court orders, other companies that don’t tout privacy to be one of their core values, have chosen to fight such orders in court.
Proton could’ve at least tried to show that they were putting their money where their mouth is, by challenging the order.
Between this and the IP logging scandal, it seems that they’re going downhill fast.
I feel you’re brushing over the privacy implications regarding how apps are used.
Sure, you could say: “Oh, but it’s inefficient to compile the entire application, and what if there are features that barely anyone uses.”
But you can also say: “Compiling the entire application ensures we don’t need to collect usage data and it ensures everyone gets the best experience, even the people that use features that are otherwise hardly used.”
Now, of course, to go with the second option, you need to care about user privacy and not gain any benefits from usage data beyond the benefits for compiling it.