kibiz0r

Headline makes it sound like the senators previously urged the FTC but were ignored.

Two things:

1: The “urging” mentioned took place today.

2:

In March, the F.T.C., which is responsible for policing unfair and deceptive business practices, solicited reports from consumers about the issue, but an agency spokeswoman said she couldn’t comment on whether the agency is investigating.

The RNC hadn’t happened yet.

I appreciate the notion, but I fear it would probably just result in management saying “just NERD HARDER”. The flip side of being more careful and focused is being less flexible. Not gonna replace that ancient foundational framework that was deprecated in 2015 if it risks legal liability.

Having been in this position, I’m sure having two apps is hell for them and increasingly complicated the more the features and back-end services overlap. And there would probably have been drastically more overlap between v2 and v3 than v1 and v2.

Ultimately, you just wanna be on one codebase.

I’m not saying this is a good or okay move by Sonos as a company to their consumers. But the die was cast when the product roadmap was established, and the short-sighted technical solutions people are throwing out in the comments are far worse options for the company (and consumers, in the long run) than just accepting the current problem and moving on.

(Photo of IoT dev living in your proposed world, colorized 2024)

It's not that simple. They sold new hardware that claimed app support, and the app support was only in the new codebase.

This is what happens when a digital rewrite is on the critical path of a physical product.

Physical product development is a behemoth. Manufacturing, certification, marketing, shipping, warehousing, contracts with retailers, etc. all add up to mean that, past a certain point in the project, the product is gonna launch whether the digital side is ready or not.

If the C-level/VP-level folks aren't willing to tailor the product roadmap to allow for a safe rewrite effort, you're pretty much guaranteed this outcome.

(Options are either keep the new product on the back burner until after the rewrite settles, or launch the product without IoT support at first. But you gotta plan for these up-front so you don't mess up your product's legal claims.)

Yeah, for sure that's the primary allusion. But the fact that there's a secondary meaning which is explicitly religious and moral is... more than a little awkward.

Does this imply the existence of Willem DaFriend?

Nimbus

Wow, really? Making saintly allusions towards any government is fraught, but especially this one.

Two economists are walking in a forest when they come across a pile of shit.

The first economist says to the other “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit.

They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit.

Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, "You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. I can't help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing."

"That's not true", responded the second economist. "We increased the GDP by $200!"

I was curious about the adoption thing and didn't wanna just weigh in on vibes, so I took 5 seconds to search it and yall...

Some of this is bleak.

https://time.com/6051811/private-adoption-america/

Anne Moody, author of the 2018 book The Children Money Can Buy, about foster care and adoption, says the system can amount to “basically producing babies for money.”

Claudia Corrigan D’Arcy, a birth-parent advocate and birth mother who blogs extensively about adoption, says she routinely hears of women facing expense-repayment pressures. Some states, such as California and Nevada, explicitly consider birth-parent expenses an “act of charity” that birth parents don’t have to pay back. In other states, though, nothing prohibits adoption entities from trying to obligate birth parents to repay expenses when a match fails.