• 0 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: October 5th, 2024

help-circle
  • spoonbilltoOpensourceGNU Taler for payments?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Honestly I don’t need to know anything about it at all except that it’s a payment system designed by GNU

    Then you seem to know even less then you thought? GNU supports development, but each project is independently designed and developed. Taler’s roots are in academia.




  • Windows 7 does not receive security updates anymore, so its use should definitely be discouraged even if it “works”.

    For software devs, they almost certainly don’t want to support an obsolete OS with a small number of users, as that requires time and effort on their side (e.g. if a user has problems on Windows 7 what should they do?). And if they want to refactor some code, do they really want to test on ancient OSs and add needed workarounds / compatibility fixes?










  • I really struggle to see where HATEOAS can be used. Obviously not for machine to machine uses as others have pointed out. But even for humans it would lead to terrible interfaces.

    If the state of the resource changes such that the allowable actions available on that resource change (for example, if the account goes into overdraft) then the HTML response would change to show the new set of actions available.

    So if I’m in overdraft, some actions are not available? Which means they are not shown at all? How can a user easily know that there are things they could do, it it wasn’t for the fact that they are in a specific state? Instead of having disabled buttons and menus, with help text explaining why they are not usable, we just hide them? That can’t be right, can it? So how do we actually deliver a useable UX using HATEOAS?

    Or is it just meant for “exploration”, and real clients would not rely on the returned links? But how is that better than actual docs telling you the same but much more clearly ?





  • If there is no reason for caps, why wouldn’t one of these companies simply remove them, giving them a competitive advantage, and making them more money? Why would one company reject making more?

    Maybe capless actually costs them more due to bad infrastructure, and they don’t see consumer demand for it? Forcing them to go capless would in that case result in higher prices.

    Maybe they form a cartel and have collectively decided to keep caps. But why, if it doesn’t actually cost them more to remove the caps? And if it does, then prices would again rise if forced to go capless.


  • Comcast would be quite unhappy with me as I’m arguing against monopolies, and for consumer choice.

    Consider two companies, A and B.

    A offers capless at e.g. $50/mo, and B offers capped at $40/mo.

    Now B can no longer offer capped, and they have to raise prices to $55 to invest in better networking. A is cheaper, and pushes B out of the market. Now A is alone, and due to it’s monopoly position raises prices to $60.

    End result: Your capless connection now costs $10/mo more, and some people even end up paying $20/mo more for internet.

    Yay?

    Reducing competition helps the ISPs, not consumers, yet somehow I’m the shill?

    I reiterate what I’ve written elsewhere: protect consumers by forcing companies to add choice, instead of forcing them to remove it.