I feel that. I desperately want to support open source hardware, but don’t have the chops to do it from scratch.

Framework laptops been close to that dream though.

Shout-out to Pathfinder, paizo, and their new license!

"The whole point of the ORC is to give the gaming community comfort, confidence, and certainty,” the licence states. “It gives our community a license that is not reliant on any one company.”

Satanic temple ftw

Probably, but A) dude literally had his hardware yoinked by the cops and B) there was no reasonable schedule shared with the user re: data deletion.

I wish googles “read only” notification said “we will delete your data after 3 months of read-only status”, just to allow folks to properly plan. If you told me the only penalty was my data will be read only, and kept accepting my money, I would assume everything is okay.

Yeah, that’s my main issue - having a 1 week deadline for deletion sprung on you when it’s not physically possible to extricate the data in that timespan is rough.

Where are you getting that they stopped charging him? The email in the article says his subscription will be stopped, which I interpret to mean he was paying

I’m pretty sure he was paying - the deletion email mentions that his subscription would be cancelled.

I would say that it sounds like the reason we no longer have nearly unlimited is that Google advertised it as something it wasn’t - unlimited.

If they said “nearly unlimited” and "we’ll start throttling your upload speed after x TB, they very much could’ve kept this going.

My understanding of tragedy of the commons is much more applicable to scenarios that aren’t in a single parties control. Things like pollution, global warming, etc.

Things like “you said it was unlimited, but didn’t account for folks taking you up on that offer” is just false/misleading advertising, or bad product planning.

I, too, can offer unlimited resources as long as folks don’t take me up on the offer. However by doing so I will lose credibility.

Two years? Users were informed the plan ended 2 years ago. Google grandfathered them in until now. If that’s not enough time I don’t know what is.

Like I said, the article says they were only told it would be put in read only mode.

Can you share a source that shows Google told them “we will delete your data in two years”?

they terminated the plan for EVERYBODY and moved to explicit storage limits. In other words, exactly what you’re advocating.

Good point. I would then argue that what we have now is in fact the nicer thing, because we’ve established it’s more consumer friendly.

Google sucks, but in this case what exactly did they do wrong?

Based on the article, the only sunsetting notice given to users was that their accounts will be put into read only mode. They should’ve provided an explicit timeline, instead giving one weeks notice for data deletion out of the blue.

You’d think they’d learned a lesson about being explicit given the exit from unlimited plans…

We’ll just roll this into the other conversation.

Are you aware the plan was sunsetted two years ago? How much time do you need to graciously exit?

Based on the article, it seems like folks were just told that their data would be put into read only. How much notice was given for data deletion?

As for finite, due to the laws of physics there’s obviously a limit. If I try backing up the entire Internet it’s obviously not gonna happen.

How’s a consumer supposed to know the limit if you advertise unlimited? Sounds like an explicit cap should’ve been written into the fine print. Why are you supporting “unlimited, but I will cut you off whenever I feel like it” versus, for example, what cellular plans typically advertise: “unlimited, but you get deprioritized after x gigs”

The former just seems to be not consumer friendly.

They put users of the entire plan in read only mode with, as far as I can tell, no deadline in sight. When a deadline was finally enforced, it was within a week, which is not significant notice at all for data deletion.

Being told “your data will be read only” and then, without notice, being given a deadline to extricate your data that is physically impossible for most users is not much different from having your account deleted. Both will inevitably have the same outcome.

According to the concept, should a number of people enjoy unfettered access to a finite, valuable resource such as a pasture, they will tend to over-use it

Emphasis on bold. Seems like they shouldn’t have advertised it as unlimited and should’ve provided a finite cap.

The line shouldn’t be drawn at “wherever I arbitrarily decide due to tragedy of the commons”. If you say it’s unlimited, honor it, or at least let folks graciously exit the platform.

I wonder if the terms and conditions had such a limit tucked away.

So what exactly is your justification for blaming someone for using a service as advertised?

If they subscribed for unlimited, you can’t blame someone for using it.

Extremely so, thank you

I’ve been trying to figure out what realdebrid actually does to no avail, and it doesn’t help that the website is likely purposefully unhelpful.

From what I can put together, realdebrid will run torrents for you, on their machines, and provide you with a download link? What are the torrent sources? Also, what about seeding ratios?

And then another comment points out that streamio is meant to work directly with torrents, which leaves me confused as far as how all the pieces fit together.

This was the final thing that convinced me to give Firefox another go, thank you.

if information is free, the action would be harmless.

FTFY.

Time for me to plug my preferred budgeting application, budget with buckets. Envelope budgeting like ynab, however it’s offline. You can import statements from your bank, use macros to access the bank, or pay 15 bucks a year for syncing through simplefinbridge.

Permanent license is a one time payment of $50, and there’s an unlimited free trial.