He’s only working on that particular old man’s OS.

I’m split on this concept. Assuming we can’t get away from tracking I would prefer a company like Google over a company like Meta. Google doesn’t sell your data, they just serve ads based on what data they have. Meta and other data brokers will sell your data to whoever ponies up the cash. I’m not happy about being tracked either way. I just recognize one system is considerably worse than the other. Also, if (and this is a big if) Google honors your request to delete your data then I believe it would be even less of a concern. Right now I have my Google data set to auto delete after three months. Ideally that would be enough data to help with traffic suggestions etc while serving up relevant ads but not enough to build an invasive profile. Realisticly we need more laws outlining how our data can be used and ensuring that it’s not retained in ANY form after a set period of time or when it’s deletion is requested.

I was going to suggest epoxy resin.

My argument to that would be if we are only a niche segment then where is the serious economic harm they are referring to? It sounds to me like API calls are happening either way but they don’t want to lose out on the ad and customer tracking revenue. Also, I as other have pointed out there is no reason it needs a remote cloud to change the thermostat.

Do not buy BS internet connected devices period. There was a time when internet connected devices did exactly they were supposed to do and nothing more. There is literally no reason why most of these devices can’t act as their own server and keep your data local and private. Corporations have become far too greedy to trust their cloud won’t sell you out in every way it can. The ONLY two reasons a manufacturer adds internet connectivity are:

1. To monitor and collect as much data as possible and/or:

2. To implement a subscription service for something that normally wouldn’t require monthly payments.

Corporate closed clouds have proven time and time again that they can’t be trusted.

All companies care about is profit margin. This is why automotive companies are so focused on trucks and SUVs. These vehicles cost a bit more to produce but can be sold at multiple times the additional investment. When electric vehicles took off they were a status symbol and sold primarily to luxury car buyers. US manufacturers beholden to share holder value will never focus on affordable transportation. This is why China will eventually eclipse the US in electric vehicles.

I’m starting to think you’re a bot. You most definitely said it was fraud to the user. No, I’m not going to go buy a mechanical blueray player and then try to figure out how to rip that content to be able to use it how I want. If you think anyone is really going to follow your needlessly complicated advice then you’re in for a rude awakening. You can keep beating this drum all day long but your attitude (and Sonys) is why piracy is going up. If you want to hang on the “you agreed to it” bull then then that’s up to you. More and more people are done caring though and there is nothing you can say to change that. Companies that put out crap terms are getting what they deserve. Your solution is no solution. Buying physical media in 2023 is just not acceptable.

I really don’t know why you’re going so far out of your way to defend a company that you yourself just said is commiting fraud. I know you probably think you’re actually making a case against piracy and not for Sony but in reality you’re putting in a lot of work into making Sony’s case for them. Your argument is that if a company is able to slip a gotcha past a dumb customer then it’s the customer’s fault for not noticing. You’re acting like there’s an alternative when there is not. Giving up on music is not an alternative, all digital content outlets seem to do this and who even owns a means to play physical media anymore? Considering there is no technical reason a company would need to revoke a digital license I’d say morally there’s nothing wrong with getting that content back in a way that does no harm to the license provider. That is unless you believe that not buying it twice somehow harms the company you’ve already paid. I’d further argue that if a company is willing to engage in fraud (your words) then that company is not ethical. A company that behaves unethically should have no expectations of their customers to behave ethically in return. You said people should stop agreeing to ludicrous terms. So long as these companies are issuing terms that you say no one should agree to I’d say piracy is completely justified from a moral standpoint. If they don’t like it then they should quit providing dubious terms and instead provide a reasonable option for a legal purchase.

I use Arch and only use Vim or Emacs for config files. That’s Linux flex culture right there. 🙂