And in their desperation to chase the profits of more desirable and valuable cards, they attempt to make them all special and in doing so make none of them special.
240 karma · joined May 7, 2014
You can. At least with iOS 26 you can, I don't know if it's new or not. You can have known spam numbers silenced, sent right to voicemail, and then the voicemail is immediately put into a spam folder.
So every screening popup I got had amusing text like "Is it going to beep? Hello?"
When it becomes commonplace, I expect the real problem with it will be that spam callers will recognize it and just starting giving false information to it to try to trick the party into accepting the call.
That's basically the purpose toll free area codes used to serve; and there's no reason that same sort of solution (with some adjustments for the modern era) couldn't continue to be used under a deposit based system. Just add some universal prefix, some unused country code for instance, that can be dialed for a "no deposit" call; and then give control to the recipient whether they want to accept such calls.
Or, well, since most modern dialing is done by submitting the whole number at once rather than digit-by-digit; it could even be a suffix. If your number is +12125551212, maybe something like +12125551212*0 could indicate a "no deposit" call. I mean, the whole suffix space could even be turned into something akin to a password so instead of just opening up accepting "no deposit" calls from the entire world, you might only accept them from specific whitelisted suffixes; and if someone leaks one and you start getting spam calls on it, you can just turn off that suffix. There might need to be some provider-enforced fail2ban to prevent wardialing those suffixes, but it doesn't sound like it'd be too difficult.
Azure DevOps went into zombie mode basically the same day the acquisition closed; I don't think it's received any new features since 2018.
When a new CEO is brought in to right a sinking ship (which Yahoo very much was at the time of her hiring), their number one responsibility is to have a solid core strategy based in leveraging the company's existing strengths and then execute competently on it.
She had no solid core strategy. Her strategy at Yahoo, as she described it, was "to throw lots of spaghetti at the purple walls and see what sticks"; which is exactly what she needed to not be doing. She blew a lot of money on a lot of very varied things and ended up with lots of expensive puzzle pieces with no plan for how to fit them all together into something that would stop Yahoo's bleeding.
At the end, the company as a whole had a valuation less than the company's Alibaba investment -- she drove Yahoo not just to zero, but past zero; and that's 100% due to her not understanding how to lead a shrinking company.
New language features and things that might alter existing behavior are usually locked behind a version declaration opt-in at the top of your script. You need to do something similar to `use v5.39;` to unlock new behaviors from that version of Perl -- which may contain breaking changes but those are also generally backward compatible too.
But that's for the base language and standard library. Individual third-party packages may vary in their backward compatibility.
It's a little horrifying seeing the hoops people are jumping through to solve a problem that's more quickly, more easily, and more fully solved with your database of choice's equivalent of a CREATE USER statement; and maybe creating some views on tables if you have a need to hide individual columns from users.
And because it has positioned itself as the single most prominent privacy-conscious champion in big tech through repeated actions over the course of many years.
There are plenty of reasons to dislike Apple depending on where your priorities are (lack of openness and cultivating an ecosystem based on locking you into it by not interoperating with anyone else are great places to start); but it's hard to make an argument that anyone else in big tech even comes close to the amount of trustworthiness Apple has demonstrated for their users.
The fact that Apple actually pushing an ad to its users is headline news speaks volumes to the trust they've earned (and damaged by doing so). Do you think it'd make headlines if Google showed its users an ad? Or Microsoft? Or Meta?
Maybe, but in a conversation about acquiring your first hundred users; you don't have a lot of word-of-mouth backing up the quality of your product. Your ability to effectively present your product will never be more important.
If it's important enough that your brochure website has images on it at all, then it's also important enough for them to not look like something you'd see slapped on a scam.
And indeed some of their actions don't even line up with bringing manufacturing back to the US as a goal; like the whole concept of 'reciprocal' tariffs being different country-by-country. And making a big deal out of 'making deals' with countries to lower tariffs.
Not to mention that if bringing manufacturing back to the US was really a primary goal, there are better ways to accomplish it than forcefully and recklessly driving the US into a deep economic contraction -- because it'll mean investing a lot of capital in building a lot of manufacturing capacity, and business doesn't like investing huge amounts of capital during a downturn, and we're on the cusp of the mother of all downturns because even if capital gets sank into rebuilding domestic manufacturing, it's going to take years before it can come online.
What I think is really going on is that a lot of wealthy people got wealthier by exploiting opportunities that arose from the 2008 crisis; and they want another bite at the apple, so one is being manufactured.
Anyone can intentionally make a bad movie that's worse than a stinker like Battlefield Earth. That's nothing worth recognizing because the difference between the actual quality and the intended quality, the ΔQ, is so tiny.
"The worst movie ever" designation should go to the film that has the highest ΔQ.