And force the developer of every app to do two complete themes (assuming they have some branding / color scheme)? While I agree it would be nice if everyone did have the option, I don't think it makes sense as a requirement.
I would like to see developers strongly encouraged to support a light and dark theme via system-wide setting. My preference would be for default colors to exist for each for when developers make no active effort to do so. If your app looks bad with the defaults, that's on you.
A kinder, gentler approach would be for the global setting to only apply if the app supports the user's preference, but big commercial apps often don't support themes now, and probably wouldn't then.
This is the impression I got as well. Stripe's policy seems to agree to export the cards but that doesn't mean you can pick any format and requirements you want and they have to follow them.
Chase needs the cards in a specific way but without more information it's hard to make the claim that's the only way acceptable by law.
If Stripe is unwilling to do extra work with Chase to get cards exported, that doesn't seem to be "refusing to transfer credit cards to another merchant per their policy".
Can you provide some more information on what part of the transfer they object too?
Someone else inside our group is handling this, but my understanding is Chase's requirements are per US law, and not anything too specific. But I could be mistaken. Email going out now to the parties involved to get it all sorted.
It still sucks to not get a clear answer, and not show up for phone meetings when this has been going on for at least 6 weeks.
> Yahoo is definitely not good on privacy, but at least they fought as hard as they could before their hand was forced where google capitulated immediately.
> Of course, it's possible more companies have challenged this secret surveillance, but we just don't know about it yet.
And no other mention of Google in the article. Great that Yahoo fought them but it doesn't support your assertion that Google immediately gave in or cares less for privacy than Yahoo.
Even better, the same source you provided (EFF's Who Has Your Back report: https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013) gives this as Yahoo's only positive mark while Google is 5/6.
Well, you used to be able to use "sofa" with google, which would exclude 'couch' etc. but then they killed that. Still works with other search engines.
> Why not? I consider sofa and couch to be synonyms. This lets me do two searches in one.
For you. For this one use-case. Which may or may not be good.
It's the effect of this scaled up, for all use-cases Google's cluster can identify, for all users which is bad. It's one of the reasons I use DDG instead of Google these days.
sometimes you dont want that eg try to find solutions for open directory problems on OSX Server (as the docs for OSX server are F%$^ S%^t) you get lost a low quality results about how to make OSX work with Micrsofts AD!
if I wanted those results I would search with Acive directoy as part of the flipping query!
I have a Chromecast as well and—prior to purchasing the Roku—used that when I traveled.
The reason I replaced it was because of the purpose it was designed to serve and how I was using it. A Chromecast is a remote viewport, not generally a consumer (save for Chrome and a handful of mobile apps). Take, for example, when I used Plex. I'd have my machine as the Plex server, my phone as the Plex consumer / controller, and the Chromecast as the viewport. All three would be on a private network served up from my travel router, disconnected from the WAN (hotel internet paranoia). All three of my internet-connected devices were required to make this setup work.
edit
Just remembered the requirement that the LAN be connected to the internet to use a Chromecast. When I'm streaming from Plex, I don't need to be on the internet. Getting connected just so I could then use Plex felt like an unnecessary hurdle.
end edit
Contrast that with the Roku which is not only the viewport but also the consumer / controller. It freed up my phone to remain on the cellular network. I could pass out watching a movie and not have to worry about missing "important" late night notifications / emails.
The alternative was to stream my screen to the Chromecast, but I found that to have tons of lag / frame-skipping.
I have a Chromecast currently, biggest issue for me is that it doesn't support 5 GHz (which matters a lot in a crowded city like San Francisco.) My 2.4 GHz signal is awful.
The remote is a nice addition, assuming the UI is good.
Using Chromecast with services like Netflix is sometimes pretty painful (Not always clear how to change the episode you're watching, if it's even possible. Unclear how to turn the dang thing off so it isn't just on some show, etc)
Chromecast is great, but it would be nice to have a somewhat standalone device to do everything, rather than needing a smartphone, computer, Plex server, etc.
Alarming only if it contributes to therapists making minimum wage which is not a given. Otherwise, I love not having to deal with tips. I wish every service had tips baked in and we could do away with them entirely.
It's also not a given that they actually go through with assigning proper gratuities.
The success model for startups these days is deceit and breaking laws. If a startup is claiming to be the "Uber of <blah>", I interpret that as a company which thinks being disruptive means breaking laws and screwing people over for the sake of growth and attempting to make good on the outrageously high investments they receive.
What I'm looking for is concrete proof that over the long run, not just in a recruitment surge, therapists end up making a living as good as or better than when they're employed by a spa. If that's not the case, then this is simply another widener of the wealth gap in this country.
If tips are baked into everything they cease to be tips. I find tips are a good thing for services where much of the value is subjective. I like the convention that makes it normal for me to pay more money to a server who goes the extra mile (although I dislike the fact that their base pay can be so low if others don't play along). I love the cashless aspect of Uber, but I hate that tips are included when you reserve SuperShuttle ahead of time. The driver can be as rude and unhelpful as he or she wants, and I still give them "additional gratuity"? Doesn't make sense. It's just a disguise for a higher price.
I've never had to work for tips, but I would HATE to have a profit-maximizing corporation be in charge of how much I get paid in entirely optional cash that has 0 impact on them.
My point is that those wages Soothe pays probably won't be as high as a typical tip-based wage one could earn without Soothe, because Soothe will want to minimize its costs as much as possible. Why pay high tips if it doesn't have to? You're not okay with that? Well fine, you can leave, because in this environment, there are plenty of other people who will work for less generous tips.
Not only does it probably degrade the client experience (the provider doesn't need to go above and beyond because it's not his brand being impacted by his service), but it commoditizes an otherwise vibrant and special service into a dull, grey blob of robots all doing the same thing.
That's my expectation for the long term.
In the short-term, I'm sure their rates will be appealing enough to attract good massage therapists, and I'm sure Soothe will do what it can to make sure its clients feel special. That's what venture capital is for.
My point is that those wages Soothe pays probably won't be as high as a typical tip-based wage one could earn without Soothe, because Soothe will want to minimize its costs as much as possible.
But again, isn't that how almost every job works? I mean, the vast majority of us are working for companies which want to minimize their costs as much as possible. Message therapists just happened to join the other 90% of us. Why the special concern?
This may be a cultural issue, since where I come tipping is much less common.
It may be cultural, but I think it boils down to corporatism.
In a traditional job, there's no subjectivity in what you're paid. You have a rate or a salary and are paid according to that. It's pretty straight-forward.
With Soothe or any tip-driven service (in the US, that includes waiting tables, cab driving, barbers, and a host of other service jobs), there's a significant amount of subjectivity that determines your income.
If you do well, you're tipped well. On just a regular $50 dinner here in the States, I can tip anywhere from $5 to $15 depending on how satisfied I am with the waitress' service.
But what if the restaurant took responsibility for the waitress' tips? It wants to maximize its profits. Chances are it's not going to pay $15 or even $10 for each table...it's going to pay a lot less.
How much less? I contend it will pay the least it can before it starts running into talent problems.
That rate, whatever it is, assuming the waitress is good, MUST be less than the average customer would pay in tips. The restaurant sees all its waitresses as good, so it can't pay any one more than the other. That would be unfair and illegal.
Customers can. And they would pay more for good service. That's why, I think, on average, at least here in the States, a tipped employee does worse when working for a company like Soothe.
I'd love to see a study on this topic for Uber et al to see what's really happening.
Well, no. As a consumer, I would assume that a tip is being paid, and that it is indeed an appropriate tip being given completely to the person above and beyond whatever agreement they might have for default service.
If this wasn't the case, Soothe is lying to me, the customer, and not providing what I paid them for. That's deceit.
Whenever I see an article like this where only one side of an email chain is posted, it makes me question the content. The start of the NG email reads "I must respectfully disagree with the implication set forth in your reply email that statutory damages for willful infringement in the range of $150,000 per work are applicable to this situation.". That makes it sound as though his email may have just reach out and said "You guys are so screwed, you do realize stealing my shit is going to cost you $150k right?". How would that prompt anything other than a carefully crafted response from a legal team?
