Airbnb customers shouldn't have to read reviews to detect scams. I mean, you can book some crappy hotels through, say, booking.com, but I think you'd have to try quite hard to book a hotel that didn't actually exist.
The article says 1 in 4 complete the programme. Sounds like the majority of people eventually choose prison. After providing a few weeks or months of free labour for an organization apparently breaking far more laws than they ever did...
People are not "choosing" this sort of rehab -- judges are choosing for them. Even if given the choice at a sentencing hearing ("would you prefer prison, or a rehabilitation center?"), I suspect many of those convicted have no idea that these rehab centers are really corporate labor camps.
The article doesn't mention if they did any research in this case but it is also quite common for judges to receive kickbacks from for-profits to get them inmates.
A judge assigning a non-user to a rehab could be the result of that kind of conflict of interest.
Two american judges went to prison for sending hundreds of minors to private, for profit detention facilities and receiving kickbacks. They made over 100k doing it. Don't have a link at hand, but since i read this on HN, someone else might supply it. Sorry, too lazy to google it for you, on mobile and realizing i'm procrastinating on important stuff.
The article specifically mentions that he was threatened with prison if he didn't work fast enough. That implies he had the option to stop work and, instead, go to prison.
“Stop working and you’ll go to a hitherto unknown, potentially worse, prison” doesn’t sound like any kind of option that I’m familiar with. The article makes it sound like many of these men were on their first offence (if that’s even applicable here) and may not have realized that their current status as slave laborers was actually the worse one. They probably shouldn’t be faulted for that.
This is only me guessing, but I'd assume this kind of behaviour would be noted in his files as some kind of insubordination and used against him if he ever applied for parole or similar.
He had no choice in going to rehab initially, I'm not sure "summon the wrath of the rehab managers and then get sent to prison" is reasonably considered a fair choice. I also suspect that getting remanded to prison because of a poor work ethic would not help his case for parole.
The difference between this project and a digital photo frame is as you’ve described - The AI generation. I think the destruction makes it special too, if every unique image disappears forever at the click of a button.
It kind of is. Expecting support for such old software is indeed unreasonable. But this is not asking for support, bug fixes, running on new platforms, or anything like that. It's people wanting to continue using the software they bought fair and square (rather than getting for free or subscribing to), and would still be able to run without this license check. How is that an unreasonable expectation? If MS doesn't want to keep the activation servers running, then they should release a patch that removes the license check.
By coincidence, my dad was just telling me this week that he'd recently bought a shrink-wrap copy of Office 2010 or 2013, couldn't activate it automatically, and while MS phone support was reluctant to activate it they eventually found some kind of a workaround.
It is. Software doesn't rust. My old copy of Office 2000 still works perfectly fine -- with Wine. Windows 2000 and Office 2000 were the last versions I bought. When M$ switched to activation-based "copy protection", I moved on to Linux and never looked back.
But the thing is: You pay for something, and it works. Then, just 11 years after the sale, the product suddenly stops working, just because someone said so, even though it's still in perfect condition. That's a nope from me. Imagine you buy new shoes, and after a while you suddenly can't put them on anymore. Or an oven doesn't work anymore after just 11 years. With M$ stuff it seems to have become a new "normal"...
This is most certainly a security initiative to standardise biometrics (Windows Hello). Windows wants everyone to use their “FaceID” because it’s more secure.
I'll believe that biometric security measures are more secure when they are fully protected under the Fifth Amendment, rather than by a few shaky court cases that could be overturned.
