People should lie about as much as possible to most companies they interact with online anyway (obviously don’t lie to your bank, or doctor, or whatever). Do always, without fail, lie randomly about your age, gender, address (if it’s not relevant) or anything else that’s not actually needed to provide the service.

Unless you’re at a company using Microsoft services, where you have no choice, other than chrome (at my company), which hot take, is worse than edge.

“With YouTube Premium, enjoy ad-free access, downloads, and background play on YouTube and YouTube Music.”

In Australia, if they reneg on this headline promise, doesn’t matter what’s in the fine print, this would be refundable under Australian Consumer Law (not a lawyer).

What bullshit, and how silly on their part, since it’s just so much more convenient to block ads instead of paying

I can’t wait for the budget framework to come out, 1 because current lineup is expensive (well, more than I’d like to spend on a laptop. I’ll run my shitty 2018 Microsoft Surface Pro 6 into the ground), but 2 because the product will be even more polished by that time.

Can’t wait to have a laptop and then just have it for like 10 years. Especially if it’s Linux out of the box 👍👍

Legal layman here, why is it I keep hearing of American companies suing regulators? I can’t recall that ever being the case in Australia, unless they’re claiming some law/regulation is unconstitutional or something.

Am I just ill informed? Seems weird.

Regulator is empowered by the law, law is made by legislators, unless it’s against the constitution of your country, surely the answer to any of these cases is: tough shit, company? No? How do they sue a regulator for regulating? Seems weird.

How is this not a warrantless search?

I’ve had a dig (I have no idea what I’m doing) but in this ASIC registry, seems to show they filed to try and wind up the company, and that was rejected? Again, not a lawyer. (See the “Documents” section)

https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/panelSearch.jspx?searchText=647102672&searchType=OrgAndBusNm

Edit to add: And they still have their trademark registered, so it clearly still exists haha how bizarre.

Someone should start twitter.com.au using this argument

What country are you in? You may be entitled to a refund/replacement since you have the receipts

Luckily/unluckily (because effort), in Australia, consumer guarantees on length of time you can get a refund are vague.

E.g. it doesn’t matter that a fridge’s manufacturer warranty is only 2 years, you expect that to last longer.

With effort, you could probably get a fridge fixed like 5 years after purchase with some badgering / threatening small claims.

Bricking your product would probably fall under that category.

This is wild speculation, not a lawyer.

While I know that these days, bugs in code can cause real-world harm (personal info leaks, superannuation records lost, lol google), I find it humorous to think of the equivalent, even worse outcomes in my discipline (chemical/process engineering).

“Didn’t do any checks, fuck it, I know this calculation is fire 🔥”

Later: 🔥🔥💥

How long do patents last for anyway? Pokemon being caught in balls must be many, many decades old by this point.

They’ve started serving ads when you skip backwards. Drives me fucking nuts.

I was willing to use the mobile app with ads because the interface is slightly less buggy.

Ad blocking on mobile web it is for me now 👍

Honestly, good on you so much for sharing. The fact you’re not ashamed and willing to share could save someone from the same attack, and as others have pointed out, even the most security minded of us can have lapses in judgement.

I’m really glad you weren’t screwed in the end.

I actually think these are fine. If I can quickly recognise each on my homescreen (I don’t use labels) then it’s fine, and I’ve never had a problem with any of these.

I like it because each company each has its own set of apps, and they have somewhat unified app icons.

Proton is the same, which similar icons as google but with their own unified branding.

I like it, personally.

(Pressure) * (volume) = (# moles) * (gas constant) * (temperature)

The ideal gas law.

In another thread I admit I didn’t explain my position here well enough. I would only not explain this equation given sufficient context (e.g. I’ve shown all those variables in a table, and my intended audience is people familiar with basic chemistry, which I’d expect would be everyone reading the report for this particular example, since this is high school chemistry, and the topic of all reports I work on is chemical engineering.)

People can read the conclusions if they’re not familiar with chemistry, and for the detail, they’re not my intended audience anyway.

Generally I still hold the position that you should define variables as much as possible, unless it’s overly cumbersome, given your intended audience would clearly understand anyway.

In context this simple equation is obvious even if you change the symbols, as long as there is sufficient context to draw from.

No worries friend, no hard feelings and appreciate the engagement!

Yeah, agree it is a bit wishy washy in terms of gauging how much explanation to include ¯_(ツ)_/¯

I suppose (in my opinion) the mindset should be: include as much explanation as possible, without it being cumbersome.

I personally err on the side of over-explanation and have had some senior engineers give me feedback that it’s too much. Still learning for myself how much is too much.

Totally agree though, that there are many cases where people leave things out as assumed, when it’s not really reasonable to do so.

A side-thought on specificity: one of my biggest pet peeves is when people list pressure with the units of kPa, when they really mean kPag. In industry, you are rarely talking in absolute pressure (other than for pressure differences) and people then get lazy/don’t know/assume it’s fine to do something like: set point 100 kPa (when they mean 100 kPag). It isn’t fine though, because at lower pressures atmosphere counts for a pretty large percentage of the absolute value.

Understand your frustration with how I’ve communicated my position, sorry about that:

My justification for the examples I’ve given is there still needs to be other context, is based on complexity of the equation, and the intended audience of that equation.

An example of me not explaining a very simple equation would be perhaps a table of various cases:

| — | mass flow (kg/hr) | density (kg/m³) | Volumetric flow (m³/hr), V = m/ρ | | Case 1 | blah blah | blah blah | blah | | Etc. | … | … | … |

Realising now that markdown tables don’t seem to work 😅, hopefully this is still clear.

It may be a touch better to put variable symbols in the other columns, but:

1. You still have the final answer (the purpose of my report, I’m not writing a thesis here)
2. It should be plainly obvious by the units, and the fact those are the previous two variables, to someone who has the ability to understand (and is the intended audience of that little equation)

As a recent example for this, in a data sheet I recently prepared, I literally just put a * in the references column and said “*calculated from other data sheet values” for the volumetric flow rate, because the intended audience would know how to do that, and the purpose was for me to communicate how that value was determined.

Me putting in the V = m/ρ in the hypothetical example I gave above is a just a little mind jog for the reader.

Where more complicated equations are used, of course these are properly referenced, usually even with the standard or book it’s come from.

I’ll redefine my position to: Clearly define all variables, unless it’s abundantly obvious to your intended audience from context.

My intended audience of the conclusions or final values are the layman. My intended audience of everything else is someone with a very basic chemical engineering understanding.

Your last point is a strawman:

I find it a bit contradicting to the very point you made about defining variables. If anything, one might be some home-grown genius that has real business getting into details but only ever used Chinese characters as variables

Because I’m writing in English, for an English speaking audience, and there is no such thing as a home-grown genius getting into my area because it’s a legal requirement that they have an honours degree. Even still, the two assumed knowledge equations I mentioned, which I would only not reference with sufficient context, would STILL be recognisable with totally random symbols.

| mass flow (kg/hr) | density (kg/m³) | Volumetric flow (m³/hr), 容 = 质/密 | Yup, a bit odd in an English context, but with the units information (always mandatory, of course) completely understandable.

There ya go (only used it up until highschool physics, in Australia, iirc), I definitely have no business reading anything regarding voltage then 😅

Thanks for sharing

You only have to define it once in a document, book, whatever. Also, it’s not like you’d ever need to do this for handwritten notes, only for a wider audience, or if you intend for something to be read by not just you.

No one is suggesting you don’t use symbols, just that you define them, and not assume the reader uses the same symbols as you. Which, so often, they don’t. (How many different ones have you come across just in highschool and uni. I came across multiple)

I’m no physicist, but surely there is a huge range of symbols for the same thing, especially the more niche you get.