How is ease of opt out versus opt in objectively measured?
Most of the time both options are presented clearly and within a few pixels from each other, but opt-in is usually slightly more eye catching and/or more appealing. But the effort in terms of distance for mouse movement or number of clicks is the same. While that’s a design trick that will improve % of opt-in, how can it be argued that the opt-out was not as “easy”?
It is very common for there to be "accept all" and "more options" buttons where rejecting all requires multiple clicks via the latter. The sites which havea "Reject all" button right next to the "Accept all" one that's the same size and such aren't flagrantly violating the law.
> If the data subject’s consent is given in the context of a written declaration which also concerns other matters, the request for consent shall be presented in a manner which is clearly distinguishable from the other matters, in an intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language. Any part of such a declaration which constitutes an infringement of this Regulation shall not be binding.
> ... It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent.
Your example does appear muddy, but I also doubt any enforcement targetting such sites.
What however is extremely common is an "Accept all" vs "Manage settings" which opens up another panel, where there is still no "Reject all" option, and only various settings where you can "Save choices" which might or might not default to what you want. Such cases are obviously blatant rule violations, both in amount of clicks and obfuscation of consent.
What do we actually lose going from cloud back to ground?
The mass centralization is a massive attack vector for organized attempts to disrupt business in the west.
But we’re not doing anything about it because we’ve made a mountain at of a molehill. Was it that hard to manage everything locally?
I get that there’s plenty of security implications going that route, but it would be much harder to bring down t large portions of online business with a single attack.
> What do we actually lose going from cloud back to ground?
A lot of money related to stuff you currently don't have to worry about.
I remember how shit worked before AWS. People don't remember how costly and time consuming this stuff used to be. We had close to 50 people in our local ops team back in the day when I was working with Nokia 13 years ago. They had to deal with data center outages, expensive storage solutions failing, network links between data centers, offices, firewalls, self hosted Jira running out of memory, and a lot of other crap that I don't spend a lot of time about worrying with a cloud based setup. Just a short list of stuff that repeatedly was an issue. Nice when it worked. But nowhere near five nines of uptime.
That ops team alone cost probably a few million per year in salaries alone. I knew some people in that team. Good solid people but it always seemed like a thankless and stressful job to me. Basically constant firefighting while getting people barking at you to just get stuff working. Later a lot of that stuff moved into AWS and things became a lot easier and the need for that team largely went away. The first few teams doing that caused a bit of controversy internally until management realized that those teams were saving money. Then that quickly turned around. And it wasn't like AWS was cheap. I worked in one of those teams. That entire ops team was replaced by 2-3 clued in devops people that were able to move a lot faster. Subsequent layoff rounds in Nokia hit internal IT and ops teams hard early on in the years leading up to the demise of the phone business.
Yeah, people have such short memories for this stuff. When we ran our own servers a couple of jobs ago, we had a rota of people who'd be on call for events like failing disks. I don't want to ever do that again.
In general, I'm much happier with the current status of "it all works" or "it's ALL broken and its someone else's job to fix it as fast as possible"!
Not saying its perfect but neither was on-prem/colocation
Would this make it easier to consume and store Teams data locally, avoiding the need for tagging M365 Graph API, if the goal is to build analytics or automation on top of Teams for things my personal account has access to?
Right now, charging Shopify store owners $99 / product / month to give them a 'verified' tag and boost their product in search results. Currently not making money on affiliate fees.
I wanted to first prove that people would actually use this / find value in it. Fortunately a few merchants have reached out already via email to talk through the business model so this will likely evolve as we learn more.
The game is great. URL is horribly hard to remember.
This is my third time having to come back to hacker news to search for it.
Yes I could bookmark, or be more deliberate about committing it to memory, instead I’d rather write this so you know what happens when you don’t see return visits going up.
2 XPS-13’s in the past few years. 1 with camera’s positioned at the bottom of the screen, which was the absolute worst design ever, unless you enjoyed showing off your nose hairs.
1 with the screen flicker and an issue with an internal fan that failed to start consistently which resulted an a blaring alarm. It would go off in the middle of the night.
The last one was replaced by a Dell XPS-15 (by my employer) which has worked fine.
I also own a personal XPS-15 that was my first Dell purchase ~3-4 years ago. It’s never had an issue and I do some heavy compute and web scraping.
I have a refurbished Dell Precision T-5600 with 128GB of RAM and 16 core processor 4TB SSD + 2TB SSD. It’s a beast, I’ve had it for 3 years. Run it daily for large scrape jobs, store and process a lot of data. It has never let me down.
I’ve used Teams every day all day for the past 4+ years and I have had minor issues with it ~5 times. Hundreds of my fellow co-workers use it and I’ve not heard anyone run into the consistent issues you’ve described.
We use it for 100% of our conference calls, sales calls, 1:1 working sessions, all-hands (hundreds of attendees), virtual trainings, new-hire onboarding, etc…
I’d say it’s the most useful software we use in my company outside of email.
Admittedly, I’m yet to experience the pure bliss that comes from collaborating on an NFT project with fellow Slack team members from my Mac Book Pro while riding in my auto-pilot enabled Tesla.
Until then, I’m pretty content with what I’ve been able to do with Microsoft Teams over the years.
Ever tried searching for a conversation you had with someone, and you search for something you remember saying, and click ‘go to message’ and rather than take you to the conversation with all the important context you were actually looking for, it just shows that single message on the center of the screen all by itself with no way to see the rest of the conversation?
There actually is a (stupid) workaround: You first pop out the chat into a separate window. Then search for the message in the main window. Now click "go to message", you will jump to the message in the separate chat window, giving you the context.
I'm forced to use it on a Mac. Every. Single. Time. I try to navigate to the window through command-tab, it fails to actually put the window in focus. So I end up having to hunt through my XCode windows, IntelliJ windows, whatever other nonsense I have open - to find a message ping that I probably would rather not have received anyway.
When I share an application on my mac, Teams overlays directly on top of that application window every time and I have to move it out of the way. It is so annoying.
If you use it for 100% of your sales calls, your probably not making all the sales you could be. It is very difficult to use Teams as an external to the org user. Some of your clients are being alienated by Teams.
Maybe its regional, but for the last 4 weeks me and every coworker has a 50% call connect failure rate. Join a meeting or call, it sits there for about 15 seconds then throws an error. Second connect works OK.
Most of the time both options are presented clearly and within a few pixels from each other, but opt-in is usually slightly more eye catching and/or more appealing. But the effort in terms of distance for mouse movement or number of clicks is the same. While that’s a design trick that will improve % of opt-in, how can it be argued that the opt-out was not as “easy”?
reply