2,069 karma · joined January 30, 2025
Is this of new car sales? Surely they've not taken over a third of the entire fleet in a few years.
I think Amazon does some special stuff with the backplane or something. Seems like it's not 100% marketing gimmicks if it actually looks better.
Really weird that you keep insisting that you're right here. Some guy on the internet made a conjecture, other people disagreed with him, and you feel the need to keep boosting his claim. Yet every argument you make equally damages your own side, rather than showing that your side is stronger. Really weird approach.
> The market is: people with homes and an iPhones. That is to say, a fair number of people.
The point of comments like mine and @layer8's is that the market is actually much smaller than this. The fact that you are considering one does not mean the market is any category that includes you. It means that it is some category that includes you (and excludes me and @layer8). We don't know how big that market is, but if longtime Apple fans are not even considering the device, then probably it is not "all people with iPhones and homes". It could still be a big market, but it's glib to say that it's so large.
This is untrue. And when I ask questions like the above, I am wondering what the spirit was they were going for. It's too vague to know.
> Ya'll know what a law is supposed to say, but weaponize language in order to invent ambiguity that any sane person would say isn't there, and as a result, a law that should only be 4 sentences ends up being 4 pages full of synonyms in order to make sure there's no loopholes.
This resonates for people who have never needed lawyers and think that lawyers just make things worse. They certainly can, but they can also make things better by pointing out when things are ambiguous and need to be clarified. Or helping parties realize where their interests align and how they can work together.
I'll be curious to see how the existence / popularity of tools like this end up affecting the pricing of paid tools like Wispr Flow.
The lack of examples/specificity makes it easier for the government to capriciously enforce this law against companies they disfavor. I'm surprised that on a startup-friendly forum, most of the comments are from folks who are worried about malicious companies, not malicious enforcement.
I totally hear you on Comcast. I've filed FCC complaints against them several times. But these rules apply equally to very small companies, who may not have the resources to make sure that they're in compliance with the spirit and letter of every rule in 50 states and 100 countries.
You say:
> I honestly don't think this is one is hard to understand at all. If you can sign up through the web you should be able to cancel through the web.
If that's all they were trying to do, they would just say that it has to be the same medium. But they don't stop there. They say you have to have a "simple cancellation mechanism" and it has to be "as easy to use as the mechanism that the consumer used to provide consent". Then they layer on the same-medium requirement that you think is the only actual requirement.
I've read a lot of rules, laws and regulations in my day (lawyer), so I know that when there are 3 distinct requirements, then you can't just meet one of them and think you're in compliance.
So if a startup lets someone sign up using Stripe, for example, does this mean that they need to have a way to unsubscribe that is as easy as Stripe? Lots of companies have a way to unsubscribe electronically, but it requires logging in to your account, going into settings, saying you want to unsub, and possibly declining various offers to stay.
Surely at some point a company could cross the line of "a simple cancellation mechanism that is as easy to use as the mechanism the consumer used to provide consent". But where is the line exactly? Surely you don't have to have a big red cancel button on every page of your platform, but at the same time surely it can't be hidden 8 levels down in the settings.
Some examples would be helpful to let businesses and consumers know what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.
> Heller faces a charge of making a written threat of violence under Florida law. Florida Statute 836.10 makes it a second-degree felony to send, post, or transmit a written or electronic record threatening to kill or injure someone, carry out a mass shooting, or commit an act of terrorism.
She didn't threaten anything, she wrote down that she was going to do it. A "threat" is more than a mere statement, especially when written in what is described as a "diary".
> A Florida woman is facing felony charges after she used Claude as a diary and allegedly wrote that she planned to "shoot up" the Sheriff's office.
Obviously I don't want anyone to shoot up anything, but this seems like a weak case legally speaking.
I also wonder how many more bad-news bits they'll drip out in the weeks before the Duo is available for pre-order.
The wall-mounted version might be cheaper if it doesn't have the pricey speaker included.