nerdawson

That seems like quite the leap and will more than likely result in you being escorted off the plane when you reach your destination.

It may well be an inconvenience to you if someone chooses to recline their seat but nobody owes you an explanation. Expecting them to justify themselves to you isn’t a reasonable stance. And given that you don’t know what someone is going through, whether they have a hidden disability, whether they’re in chronic pain, I really wouldn’t advise asking, let alone shouting at them.

It’s different when there’s a compelling physical need here. If the person in front of me has a hurt back and can’t bear sitting upright, and I knew about it, I’d put up with it as best I can in the interest of we’ve all got to get along. But in the scheme of things, not that many people are unable to sit up and not crush their neighbors.

How would you know whether or not the person in front of you has a compelling physical need? Are they supposed to explain their health concerns to you in the hope that you deem it sufficiently acceptable for them to do what they can to be comfortable? It’s unreasonable to expect someone in physical pain to suffer the indignity of explaining themselves to someone they don’t know.

If I have the option to recline my seat, and doing so is going to make me more comfortable, that’s what I’m going to do.

I can live with the person behind me thinking I’m an asshole.

The airline offers the facility and I won’t sacrifice my own needs for fear of upsetting a stranger.

Most of the trains north between Preston and Glasgow were being cancelled that day due to the weather. Perhaps knowing they only had one more attempt at landing safely left, Manchester further south seemed like the better bet.

How so? They inform the reader not to misinterpret the information as advice specific to their situation.

- The real criminals are people from Spain, speculative funds and tourists from all over the world buying property here and not using it. They steal to everybody.

So create a tax for leaving property empty and use that to fund programs to address homelessness.

There are plenty of solutions which aren’t permitting theft.

Banning short term rentals for instance would be pretty effective. There could be other side effects but it’d certainly lead to many second homes being sold.

We aren't paying low, the problem is the crazy rent market.

I sympathise with this. My assumption would be that imposing punitive taxes on unoccupied properties is the most realistic solution.

If that forces people to sell, supply goes up. If people continue as they were, there’s more money available to do something with.

I live in a country of people with diverse views. I feel it's ignorant to assume that I'm speaking on behalf of the majority of my fellow citizens.

Quoted from the article:

Public opinion on squatting is polarised, with some viewing it as a necessary response to systemic failures that leave citizens without affordable housing options. Others see it as an infringement on property rights and a challenge to the rule of law.

If you're actually fine with theft, again going back to the mugging example, we simply couldn't be further apart in our views. I would be curious to know if you're a homeowner but honestly, I don't think either of us are going to gain anything from delving any deeper with this discussion.

I'm merely pointing out that you're assuming ignorance simply because I have a different opinion to you. Having lived there myself, I'd like to think I have something of an understanding of the culture.

Freeloaders, admittedly a charged word, is how I'd view someone who helps themselves to something I've worked to pay for. How is that any different to a mugger stealing your phone or your wallet? After all, they're likely in a worse financial position than you. If you can afford to replace it, let them have at it.

And anyone who has an extra house is 'well-off'.

I don't want to fall into a strawman here but my interpretation is that you're fine with criminals stealing from someone, as long as they're in a better financial position than you are. It's convenient to imagine that the only people falling victim to this are those who can afford to have their property stolen from them.

You people are literally making up things about a country that you don't know about.

I’m not from the US.

I spent 2 years living in Spain.

Are you claiming that the average Spanish citizen believes that a typical person should be responsible for freeloaders rather than the government?

Perhaps that's the intent of the policy. The actual outcome on the other hand harms people who are using their properties.

- Holidays lets - Standard lets where there's a changeover - Properties for sale - Your own home when you're on holiday

Your comment is completely disconnected from the reality of the situation facing ordinary middle-class people.

Maybe you could argue that squatters need support but subsidising them is the role of the state, not a job for individual citizens.

I don't doubt the media are prepared to jump on and inflate any problem if it'll drive engagement. That doesn't mean the underlying issue isn't real.

I could offer some anecdotal evidence but that seems pointless. Especially when the stats speak for themselves. It's not just media hype.

I have family who let out property in Spain.

They, along with other people in a similar position to them, have all suddenly become experts in smart home tech.

They have video doorbells, motion sensors, door sensors, etc. All so that they can be alerted to any activity immediately, allowing them to act within the exceptionally short eviction window.

The reality on the ground is that these ridiculous policies are widely exploited.

By that logic, Theranos wasn't a scam either. The hardware existed and it delivered a result. It didn't do what was claimed however and the results were routinely faked.

It was claimed that the R1 would navigate an app like a person would. That it wouldn't matter if the UI changed because the AI would figure it out the same way a person would. It follows a script and breaks when the UI changes.

It was claimed that it would be faster than ChatGPT. The majority of it is a ChatGPT wrapper.

A product exists, sure, but I'd be surprised if anyone feels it met expectations.

Their data was exposed by breaching a third party service. I'm not sure how investing more in security could have helped prevent this.

You could argue that they shouldn't be housing this data with Snowflake but then you could say the same about a service like Amazon S3.

At what point is a company able to rely on a third-party vs being expected to run it in-house?

The slightly clumsy wording would indicate to me that it's a real person rather than a chatbot.

I agree, it's a backwards move. Smartphones already absorbed the functionality of discrete devices like cameras, music players, etc. Why anyone would want to go back to carrying more stuff is beyond me.

AI hardware has to be an incredibly tough space to be in. Things are moving at such a rapid pace that by the time you launch, you’re already out of date.

There's a BBC documentary which does a good job of detailing the political plotting of the time: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m00084td/rise-of-the-...

That's true, in certain situations, companies can use the system to make it painfully risky to attempt to take action against them.

There's a very different business culture in the UK when it comes to legal threats and I suspect the fact the loser pays both sides plays a big part in that. As a business owner, I'm happy to avoid more commonplace legal nonsense, even if it means there's potential for huge companies to abuse it.

He's had his assets frozen to ensure he can't get out of paying the legal fees:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/bitcoin-high-court-lon...

The norm, as far as I'm aware, is that the losing side is on the hook for the winner's legal fees. Seems like a pretty good deterrent against bringing frivolous claims.

Seems a little too convenient for me.

I'm seeing the same error message despite it always working fine in the past.

BPA-free shouldn't offer any comfort.

Manufacturers simply replace BPA with similar alternatives which aren't as widely known by consumers (BPS or BPF for example).

A new business hasn't proven itself viable therefore it's a huge risk to a bank.

Between personally guaranteeing a loan and not having the funding available at all, I'd take the former.

Once the business has been trading for a while and shows it has a working model, it shouldn't have any problem financing without a personal guarantee.

Either way, limited liability remains crucial. You're still in control of how much personal risk you're accepting, putting a backstop on any loss.

AI is probably going to end Zoom auth calls. They'll almost become so trivial to fake as to be useless.

This database will eventually be hacked, leaked, shared with local law enforcement (further allowing it to be leaked).

In the UK, all of that information is freely available to anyone via Companies House.

A fairly basic version of anonymous verification would be that local stores sell an age token. You show them your ID, like you would for buying alcohol, and they give you the token which could then be used with online services to prove you're over a certain age.

It only becomes a problem if stores are forced to store the ID and link it to the token in some way.

That’s an interesting point.

If some game announced you could only get it through an alternative app store, I wouldn’t play that game.

Banking is critical functionality on the other hand. Under those circumstances, I’d change banks. The likelihood of any major bank attempting that seems awfully low and I’m sure it’d attract the widespread condemnation it deserves.

Android has sideloading. I don’t doubt some apps try to push users to an alternative marketplace but important everyday apps are where you’d expect them to be.

I personally am happy to pay the premium to get a quality device that forces developers into a constrained environment for my benefit.

I too like the walled garden. I don't really see that as an argument against sideloading however. Presumably the first-party app store would continue to operate with the same restrictions and I'd happily avoid opting-in to sideloading.

The people who want it are happy and I'm no worse off.

Should we regulate to prevent jobs from being replaced? Wouldn't that make us less competitive with countries that aren't willing to artificially cap that?

I'm not against AI regulation on safety grounds but I'm not convinced it's a good idea to try to use regulation to preserve jobs. That feels like it would have much more damaging longer term consequences.

How can you stop it? If company A refuses to build it on moral grounds, company B will.

It is reshaping society in much the same way the industrial revolution did. Luddites resisted change, for precisely the same reason people aren't happy about AI, and it's now a derogatory label.

It's much better to adapt to a changing world but precisely what that entails is still up in the air.