namingthingsiseasy

All your points are sound. The issue that I have with this is that remote disable functionality is not necessary to achieve any of these aims. Before they were connected to the internet, people were still able to rent/lease autos and the world managed to survive just fine. There were other ways for lenders to get remunerated for breaking lease terms - they could issue an additional charge, get a court order for repossession, etc. Remote disable was never needed or warranted.

So let's start by considering the due process here. Before, there was some sort of process involved in the repossession act. With remote disable however, the lender can act as judge, jury and executioner so to speak - that party can unilaterally disable the device with no oversight. And if the lender is in the wrong, there is likely no recourse. Another potential issue here is that the lender can change the terms at any time - it can arbitrarily decide that it doesn't like what you're doing with the device, decide you're in breach, and hit that remote kill switch. A lot of these things could technically happen before too, but the barriers have been dramatically lowered now.

On top of this, there are great privacy concerns as well. What kinds of additional information does the lender have? What right do they have to things like our location, our habits, when we use it, and all of the other personal details that they can infer from programs like this?

There are probably lots of other issues here, but another part of the problem is that we can't even start to imagine what kinds of nefarious behaviors they can execute with this new information and power. We are well into the age where our devices are becoming our enemies instead of our advocates. I shudder to think what the world would look like 20 years from now if this kind of behavior isn't stopped.

Yeah, that second paragraph is more what I was thinking (terrible phrasing on my part). The issue is that fighting these contracts in court is risky - you might lose, and even if you don't, it's a big commitment to fight a legal case against a large company no matter which jurisdiction you're in.

To put it another way, look at it from a game theory perspective - there's plenty of benefit from putting these terms in, and no downside whatsoever. So the optimal move for vendors is to put garbage like this into the contact.

Perhaps! But only if they allowed third party app stores. Because as it stands right now, they're basically inventing a cost that they pass on to developers, and then rewarding themselves handsomely for the cost that they would have never needed to pay if they allowed others to compete in this area. It's still a tactic they could not get away with if they were not a monopoly.

These EULAs are often just corporate wishlists

Then I really wish there were regulations over what kinds of things you're allowed to put in a contract. If there were punitive measures for putting things in contracts that anyone should know is not enforceable, then maybe companies would think twice before putting language like this in.

It's not wrong, but it's just terribly short-sighted. You're giving greed-crazed companies total control over a device that you own and nobody else should be able to touch.

Shiny things come at a cost. Sure, it may look convenient and super cool to have all these features, but it's important to understand the trade-offs. And this is just the tip of the iceberg - we don't even know what kinds of malice these companies will think of 5-10 years from now when these machines are even more widespread and probably come with even more invasive anti-user hardware capabilities.

It's not wrong... it's just very very naïve.

Despite that success, and the App Store’s role in making it possible, Spotify pays Apple nothing.

That's because Spotify doesn't owe you anything. If I release a piece of software for Apple, Android, Linux, Windows, etc., I don't owe these OSes anything for that. Apple makes plenty of money selling hardware, that's good enough for them.

These delusional bastards really need a few slaps around their heads to get this concept to sink in.

According to this, the fine includes a punitive damage:

Vestager said that the lump sum of €1.8 billion had been added as a deterrent since the basic amount of the fine, which she compared to a "parking ticket," would have been quite small.

The total fine of €1.84 billion amounts to 0.5% of Apple's worldwide turnover, according to Vestager.

Still not enough in my opinion, but hopefully if this sticks, future damage awards will be even higher. In any case, there will be a lot more fines and regulations coming down on Apple into the future (thanks in large part to the DMA), so even though this is just a single instance, they will hopefully add up pretty significantly in the coming years.

Oh goody. I've been wanting to use this since my slashdot days... today is my first chance!

Your post advocates a

[x] technical
[ ] legislative
[ ] market-based
[ ] vigilante

approach to fighting (ML-generated) spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why
it won't work. [One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea,
and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad
federal law was passed.]

[ ] Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
[ ] Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
[ ] No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
[ ] It is defenseless against brute force attacks
[ ] It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
[ ] Users of email will not put up with it
[x] Microsoft will not put up with it
[ ] The police will not put up with it
[x] Requires too much cooperation from spammers
[x] Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
[ ] Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
[ ] Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
[ ] Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

[ ] Laws expressly prohibiting it
[x] Lack of centrally controlling authority for email^W ML algorithms
[ ] Open relays in foreign countries
[ ] Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
[x] Asshats
[ ] Jurisdictional problems
[ ] Unpopularity of weird new taxes
[ ] Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
[ ] Huge existing software investment in SMTP
[ ] Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
[ ] Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
[ ] Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
[x] Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
[x] Extreme profitability of spam
[ ] Joe jobs and/or identity theft
[ ] Technically illiterate politicians
[ ] Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
[x] Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
[ ] Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
[x] Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

[x] Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
[ ] Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
[ ] SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
[ ] Blacklists suck
[ ] Whitelists suck
[ ] We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
[ ] Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
[ ] Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
[ ] Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
[ ] Sending email should be free
[x] Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
[ ] Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
[x] Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
[ ] Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
[ ] I don't want the government reading my email
[ ] Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

[x] Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
[ ] This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
[ ] Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!

My advice would be to learn C first (or at least develop a good understanding of it). It's extremely important to understand how memory works in C so that you can understand pointers in C++; and also important to understand how functions work so you can understand classes and methods in C++. I would go through The C Programming Language. It's fairly concise and while you don't have to go through it cover to cover, you should at least understand the chapters on structs, pointers and functions (up to chapter 6, I believe).

(Note that the wikipedia link that I posted above has a link to the full text of the book in pdf format.)

The reason why I think it's important to understand C is because when you learn C++, then you'll understand how the language abstracts over a lot of the lower-level functionality in C. new in C++ supplants malloc in C for example, and your understanding of functions in C will map to more complicated concepts like constructors, destructors, copies, methods, and operators in C++. At this point, I would probably start learning how classes in C++ work. They're basically structs with private member variables and methods defined in the scope of the class. learncpp.com, is the best reference that I'm aware of (it's very thorough, which makes for a pretty slow read, but you'll understand it very well). I would probably start with chapter 14 (introduction to classes), and then go back to the earlier chapters to fill in the gaps, but this is more dependent on how you think you learn best.

Be aware though, that if you don't have existing experience with OO development, then C++ is (in my opinion) not a great language to start learning it, because a lot of it is hacked on top of C and implemented in arcane ways in order to maintain compatibility with C. The first language I learned was Java, and it was really helpful to have that as a background for when I learned C/C++. I'm only familiar with Javascript on a procedural programming level, so I'm not aware of its OO functionality or how well that will translate to C++, but hopefully it works out.

Good luck!

There was a quaint old time, shortly after Google was founded, where people mused about privacy over the internet. It was forgotten about as the profits started rolling in and pretty much all other companies started following along. That was the time when we started transitioning into a period of massive data surveillance. Glad to see that the conversation is starting to pick up again in some areas, though it's definitely being actively suppressed in many others.

GDPR desperately needed on the other side of the pond...

And yet, many (maybe even most) countries in Europe operate on a pension system for retirement. That would include tech workers in said countries as well.

But American companies (and Canadian too?) have mostly done away with them by now