That's the thing, the paid apps, music, movies, etc. are actually just licenses. And, although I didn't read the contract myself, I'm pretty sure the Terms and Services all users agreed to during the purchase of said license (or even just during account sign-up) stipulates that the company reserves the right to revoke any license purchased for any reason, etc.
Though I do like your way of thinking. Potentially, if there really is a violation (which there was not in this case, but just an example), then, in theory, the company can implement a system that allows users to still access the content, but remove interactions (e.g. in the case of fraud, remove the ability to transact, etc.). Of course, this requires resources to implement and maintain, so it's unlikely to happen.
I'd say it's less of a "BIOS update to fix a software bug" and more of a "BIOS update to provide control to the user to perform a workaround for a software bug whose fix requires at least two, but probably more, parties to rollout".
> Check out GOG.com if you want to avoid DRM entirely.
I already avoid most DRMs since they don't normally run on Wine/Proton.
(As mentioned, cracks are available and are legal to use for compatibility and archival; though developing nor sharing them is, go figure. Recent document about such circumvention exemptions: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-10-28/pdf/2021-2...)
The other thing is that I use mostly FOSS stuff so I don't normally have to worry about DRM breaking things or causing me issues.
>The DRM doesn’t provide any benefit… to you. It does benefit the developers and publishers.
That's cool. I don't run software on my machines, using my power, using my bandwidth, and hw resources to make publisher's/developer's lives easier. They want it? They can keep it.
I think OP means they don't mind sharing their information with the search engine (be it Google, another engine that provides better results, or even a better Google in terms of results), _as long as_ OP has control over exactly what is being shared.
As an aside, I do see the trend for some companies to provide this control nowadays. Even Google is doing it (e.g. you can auto delete your information, or turn them off completely): https://myaccount.google.com/data-and-privacy
Of course, whether or not you believe Google is doing what you have configured in the backend is another question... and there is nothing anyone can do to actually make you believe it short of giving you complete access to the entire Google backend. Or is there a way to verify without exposing? Maybe an interesting research topic...
Unfortunately, in competitive markets like the Bay Area, HOA neighborhoods are the only option available to you in your price range for most people starting out. Your other options are to rent, or to move to a location far from where you work. (Or to live with your family if that is available to you, and all parties agree on it).
Now, of course, if you can and prefer to permanently work remotely, then moving to a further location from where you work may be a good option for you. But then you will have to consider the risk of you being able to continue to have a job that allows permanent remote work.
What competitive Bay Area markets are you referring to? We've bought here a couple times, and although we looked at a few properties that were part of a 3-5 unit "HOA", most of the homes we saw (and both of the ones we bought) were not anywhere near HOAs. In fact, we currently live on a street that is not a public road, but which is apparently maintained by neighbors without resorting to an official HOA.
I guess it depends on what your price range is. For most people starting out, the price range is generally less than $1M. At that price, you will generally only have townhouses or condos available to you, which will generally have HOAs. It sounds like the properties you have been looking at are more akin to "multi-tenant" units in which it is much easier for all owners to collaborate. The properties I'm referring to are those with many more units, and in these communities, an official HOA is usually already set in place long before the first unit was purchased (agreement already set with the builders).
That said, I should probably qualify my original comment with "Bay Area within 1 hour of typical office locations in the Bay Area on typical rush hour commute". Here, "typical office locations" will include San Francisco County, San Mateo County, and Santa Clara County. This then limits your property locations to San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, and Alameda County. In _these_ locations, $1M can generally only get you a condo or townhouse with many units (at least the last time I checked).
I guess I think of HOAs as being organizations that are not necessary and that govern single-family homes. Townhomes that have adjoining roofs and condos that have shared roofs/elevators/hallways/etc. require some sort of governance to handle maintenance of common areas.
It's true that the most egregious complaints about power-hungry board members can be similar among HOAs and condo/coop boards, but in my mind HOAs are different in that they are not strictly necessary.
I would agree that in the areas you mention, $1M doesn't cover a single-family home, or even undeveloped land for a home. But I would guess that many first-time buyers in this area actually buy homes that cost a good deal more than $1M, with cash from IPOs or acquisitions. We got new neighbors after the FB IPO and the Nest acquisition, for example.
Indeed. If I buy (as a first time homeowner), it’ll be for 2-3m. Our next door neighbors are first time homeowners and bought for $2m (not including the $200k+ in renovation costs).
I’m pretty sure the people buying townhouses aren’t just people trying to get into the market but also people who will not likely be able to afford more. The gap between a townhouse and a decent standalone house is still a large gap and it only gets wider as time goes on. Thus it becomes even harder to go from townhouse to sfh even if you already own a townhouse...
Isn't item (3) more of a policy thing rather than a language thing? Granted, I actually never coded in Kotlin (and very very little in Go), so if it's "encouraged" in Kotlin, then your point (3) makes sense.
This is actually one of our reasons for choosing Go! We recognized that we'd have to come up with a fairly detailed style guide for Kotlin to reflect how we wanted to generally approach things so that it's possible to jump into another part of the codebase and not get lost.
I've worked with systems where some of the things were defined as a DSL within Kotlin (with implicit receivers and a shitton of extension functions), so you can definitely shoot yourself in the foot.
I think it's ameliorated by being designed by an IDE developer, so all that magic has control+click to go to definition. I've debugged some hairy nested implicit receiver code with jetpack compose pointer events, and found it very easy to read exactly what was executed.
I'm a beginner though, and kotlin was the first language where it occurred to me I could just read the source of a library.
Though I do like your way of thinking. Potentially, if there really is a violation (which there was not in this case, but just an example), then, in theory, the company can implement a system that allows users to still access the content, but remove interactions (e.g. in the case of fraud, remove the ability to transact, etc.). Of course, this requires resources to implement and maintain, so it's unlikely to happen.