> I check for game and system updates on my Deck before and after a session and it just takes a few minutes at most.
Right, that makes sense if you have sessions often. But, the thread started with automatic updates being bad for occasional users because they either have to waste energy keeping the machine on all the time to get updates in the background or have their mood cooled when they want to play but are forced to wait 30 minutes for updates.
Personally, I use Steam often but even then I get annoyed at updates. If I quit Steam, I sometimes have to wait for it to download Steam updates. Sure, it's not 30 minutes, but they happen when I want to play. I keep Steam open on my always-on machine and it annoys me. There's a reason I run manual updates on my computer on Fridays... then I don't get interrupted. Apps that auto update suuuck if you value your time.
> If those Amazon trucks are all full, and are making deliveries constantly along their routes, than more trucks doesn't mean less efficiency.
Right but a truck could be full of not 100 packages for 100 houses, but 100 packages for 70 houses. Both are full, but one will require fewer miles driven, hence be more (fuel/environmental impact) efficient (not necessarily time efficient).
They are optimizing for time and cost, not message board clout :)
They presort regionally and the trucks at the delivery stations are loaded with assigned containers/pouches of packages. It doesn’t make sense to hold a truck for a pouch and doesn’t really save anything to have ground covered twice.
They do other stuff too. They schlep heavy stuff on UPS, and hazardous or liquids usually go USPS.
> Both are full, but one will require fewer miles driven
That isn't really true, though, because these houses exist in the real world and aren't just buckets to be visited.
Your conclusion would only be true if houses are all equidistant from the warehouse. That truck with the 100 packages for 70 houses is going to have to drive by more than just 70 houses to complete its route. It would not add additional fuel or miles to stop at those houses while it goes.
Only because stores that have large parking lots are in cheap land areas that are hard to reach by bus, bike, or anything except a car really. Where one can comfortably walk to a store, giant parking lots are awful.
Indeed, and in defense of Costco, you don't go there by bus or bike anyway because you'll be coming home with 200 pounds of stuff. Target is different for me. I hop in there for one or two odd things that I need, likewise the nearby grocery store. A side effect is that I don't waste money or space on stuff that I don't need, because I can always hop over there in a jiffy if I do need it.
In lieu of Costco, my family buys all of the big and non-perishable stuff at a giant discount supermarket that's closer to the edge of town, or at least it was until other stuff got built up around it. But we try to minimize the number of trips.
Do most American's have an Amazon delivery every other day? It's not what it feels like where I live, but I might live in a part of the country unusually avoiding Amazon. While I see an Amazon truck every day, they visit 1-2 houses around me out of hundreds.
If feels like there are Amazon households that get a delivery every or every other day and non-Amazon households that order 1-5 times a year (if that) and batch their purchases from other retailers (physical or online). That's the genius of Amazon. Those that use them, use them a lot.
That's not the real question.... The real question is "On my block, what is the probability of any given house having at least one delivery on any given day"
I can say for certainty that Amazon delivers to my block every day. Adding 1 extra package is definitely more energy saving than me driving to Costco for the same thing.
> The real question is "On my block, what is the probability of any given house having at least one delivery on any given day"
In the city, I used to see multiple Amazon delivery trucks per day. On the rural road I now live on (dead end road with fewer than 30 households), USPS does most of the Amazon delivery, but this is somehow enough people that we see FedEx and/or UPS drive by pretty much every day in addition to USPS obviously driving by six days a week.
Given that they're also visiting the neighboring roads, it's definitely enough for an economy of scale.
But the phone number you have is not 100% in your control. I had AT&T flub something and I lost my number and they assigned me a new one (I was chanting my plan just after they did some merging with someone). Granted its unlikely but I would still use defense in depth and not have password reset be my only login method.
It's also why I always opt for 2FA that's within my control: a security key, TOTP, or an email address on a domain I own. That last one is the weakest, since I own the domain as long the registrar says I do but it's better than a corporation I can't get support from if my email account is locked for any reason.
> I'm pretty sure 99% of the people on exposed have already had their names, phone numbers, email and physical addresses leaked already. This has nothing to do with the security of your passwords stored in LP. They have some CRM, some person from their 800 employees clicked a sketchy link and it leaked that. It's not good, but its hardly an indictment of their product or usefulness
Would you be okay will a public database of all people's names, emails, addresses, phone numbers, and other contact details? After all, most people's data have already been leaked somewhere. Credit reporting agencies have leaked more sensitive data. I, for one, still expect companies to keep my private data private. Especially companies who's started purpose is to keep my secrets secret. It's a bad look for them and if I trusted them this would make me lose my trust in them. But, they already lost my trust two or three (I lost count) breeches ago.
I agree the ship has sailed but I have no desire to make it easier for people to spam me or social engineer any of my accounts. If they want to send some crypto to some stangers on the internet to do it, I can't stop that, but I am not going to hand the info to them on a silver platter.
Where I’m from there actually were guides like this of the whole country, published once a year, I think even into the early 2000s. They stopped doing it for cost savings, but this type of information being public is considered fairly normal by many, as long as you have the ability to unsubscribe.
my ssn (usa) and my credit info (also usa) was already leaked in a data breach. i don't care about my encrypted blob in lastpass being leaked because it's computationally too expensive to crack it (assuming it's not a targeted attack with hostile nation-state level gpu capacity)
Yes, a public database like this would be acceptable. That way the info isn't paywalled behind some white pages site or similar. And then maybe I could even update my own info to be correct. Contact info is pretty much out there for most people already. Hell, I put it on my resume and send that out to many people and put it on public sites.
I am glad you want the world to know your phone number, but not everyone does.
Since we still use SMS as second factors (or primary, as some in this thread said they don't write down passwords but just use password reset links to login), it's not the best security hygiene
If you are going to include a speaker's child-naming prowess as a factor in assigning value to an opinion, you might as well just flip a coin, go with vibes, go with the one that matches your biases, or all three.
When I was a child my brother taught me to always consider the incentives, especially the monetary ones, of a speaker. 'Follow the money'. So, in this case neither Musk nor Hoffman would get much traction with me as both of them are incentivized to form a pro or con opinion of xAI.
If you are talking about LinkedIn, I don't know how universally they are considered a tech company. Is any company that does its core business on a website a tech company now, even if their innovations aren't tech? NY Times has some fancy tech, but you'd be hard pressed to consider them a tech company.
These days every company uses tech in some way. If the bar is "uses tech" then every company is a tech company and the category is meaningless. If you asked a layman to name tech companies, would Disney appear high in their list? What about Ford? Or Chevron? All those companies use tech and all those companies develop new tech. But I think most people would say media company, car company, and oil company. In my mind LinkedIn is close enough to a tech company that you convinced me. But I do think it's a spectrum and Netflix and Facebook are more tech than. LinkedIn. LinkedIn is a sleazy job board or recruiting company. I feel the same way about Craigslist (is that a tech company?) Was Gawker a tech compsny? How about Hertz? A lot of my tech friends used to work at Starbucks but I think most customers don't consider it a tech company.
That's the reason I don't have an id.me account to check my IRS account. I just use their guest login to play my tax bill quarterly. Not sure how I will pay my taxes once they nix that.
Right, that makes sense if you have sessions often. But, the thread started with automatic updates being bad for occasional users because they either have to waste energy keeping the machine on all the time to get updates in the background or have their mood cooled when they want to play but are forced to wait 30 minutes for updates.
Personally, I use Steam often but even then I get annoyed at updates. If I quit Steam, I sometimes have to wait for it to download Steam updates. Sure, it's not 30 minutes, but they happen when I want to play. I keep Steam open on my always-on machine and it annoys me. There's a reason I run manual updates on my computer on Fridays... then I don't get interrupted. Apps that auto update suuuck if you value your time.