Believe this is bad legal advice. They would only need to prove you destroyed information with intent to impede an investigation/case. They would not need to prove something convicting or weighing was destroyed.
What you seem to be referring to would be obstruction, whereas the entire parent thread was specifically discussing destruction of evidence. Fair to point out that there are other offenses that could be charged, but misleading to imply it’s the same thing.
> They would only need to prove you destroyed information with intent to impede an investigation/case
Which requires them to prove they know that device likely contains relevant information. Just being party to a court case doesn't mean you're forbidden from deleting anything ever again... like I said there are very specific rules for evidence, and one cannot begin to claim something relevant is destroyed if you can't even show that you had any idea what might have been destroyed in the first place.
It mostly hinges on your intent, i.e. what they can argue is your understanding of the information you destroyed, not theirs. It unfortunately can be far-reaching, including into the past.
You're right that in normal circumstances you can routinely delete records for data hygiene, to save money, as part of a phone repair, and so on, unless you've been court ordered otherwise.
32MB ram <-- no way. 4 and 8MB were the standard (8MB being grand), you could find 16MB on some Pentiums. So 40MB drive and 32MB RAM is an exceptionally unlikely combo.
Nah, as the other poster said 4 or 8 MB was what was common on 486 machines. Even less on 386. Most 386 motherboards didn't even support more than 16MB.
So this depends if it was a 72 pin DIMM board. I don't think you could get there (easily?) on a 30 pin board, but 72 may have had native support for 64 out of the box.
Yeah, IIRC my first computer, or at least the first one I really maintained, was a Pentium 2 with 32MB of ram and a 2gb hard drive. Good ole gateway pcs.
These models do well changing brownfield applications that have tests because the constraints on a successful implementation are tight. Their solutions can be automatically augmented by research and documentation.
I don't exactly disagree with this but I have seen models simply deleting the tests, or updating the tests to pass and declaring the failures were "unrelated to my changes", so it helpfully fixed them
I’ve had to deal with this a handful of times. You just have to make it restore the test, or keep trying to pass a suite of explicit red-green method tests it wrote earlier.
That is unusual. I’ve encountered a couple people like this. They also refuse get-togethers in people’s homes and potlucks. One said he would be willing to come to a potluck if he could inspect everyone’s kitchens first; he wasn’t joking! It’s a blend of germaphobia and social distrust, I suppose.
That said, if someone was grieving and they couldn’t handle more than receiving delivered takeout, I’d happily send it, just as I’d accommodate another dietary preference when preparing a real meal.
I think it comes from some bad experiences at church potlucks and school bake sales when I was a kid. Combine that with watching people cook who taste with the stirring spoon and then stick it back in the pot and I’d rather not eat your homemade goods.
I also had some bad experiences eating at my grandmothers (she was a terrible cook). I think her experiences in the Great Depression meant no food would go to waste. I ate so many years-past expiration foods when I was a kid. Have you ever had really intense food poisoning? Ugh…
I understand. Our upbringing and formative experiences make for powerful programming. My favorite family recipe is my brother's least favorite because he ate it the day he got an intense stomach bug when he was in grade school. Even though he's more objective about food now, he still finds the idea of me liking it revolting. :)
Agape could be discussed as a philosophy between disagreeing figures like King and Carmichael. Today, fewer people have encountered the idea so they can’t choose it as a philosophy.
Without agape, political activism is more zero-sum and utilitarian. Non-violence becomes a gambit that is only appealing as long as it is making obvious gains against the current winners, and there is little motivation to remain nonviolent after becoming winners.
I've spent a lot of time with people who seem themselves operating within ML Kings lineage and have their lives committed to this kind of nonviolence work, and they defintely operate from within the an "agape mindset", even though they wouldn't frame it like that.
in my understanding some people use 'non-violence' to describe the more utilitarian version, and 'noniovlence' for that which exits the entire 'domination paradigm'
I don't know if I like the marketing. A deeply discounted product obviously has some appeal, but it's at odds with the "chat that just works" messaging that suggests an advantage in reliability or UI and that will realistically take time to mature enough to be at parity, let alone ahead.
I wasn't defining as feature parity and didn't think you implied that anywhere.
If you've come up with a way to perform as well as Slack at the basic multi-client message service at launch, that's great. "that doesn't suck"/"that just works" reads to me like more the claims of a low cost MVP that hasn't solved those issues yet. (Probably because they're overused.)
Only speaking to your marketing and not intending to impugn your team credentials/experience.
The main feature you seem to be interested in is the fact that you’ve saved yourself 100x infrastructure costs on your back end and that the app performs well. But that doesn’t benefit end users at all, that isn’t a solution to business pain.
That ability to integrate is the core of Slack’s identity. That’s the main reason to use Slack instead of its predecessors. Slack competitors like Teams, Zulip, and Mattermost all offer easy ability to integrate with anything that can make a web request.
You site’s marketing copy dunks on Huddles but I think it’s the other essential functionality to include in a chat application. You’re saying I can’t have a video/screen sharing call on your application when I can do that for free with Discord?
IMO this package you’re advertising is kind of a contradiction and/or a no-man’s land.
It’s like you’re charging $20 for Notepad.exe when the Microsoft Office suite is $100, and then your selling point is that it’s fast and lightweight. But then your customers could just get Notepad++ for free elsewhere.
I’m concerned for you as far as having a buyer persona or ideal customer profile.
People who buy your product for its low price have to supplement lost features by paying for other stuff.
People who don’t need all the features of Slack could just use something free like Signal, WhatsApp, Matrix, Discord, etc, and they might actually GAIN some features in comparison.
People who buy your product to avoid bloat arguably don’t really avoid it because they have to constantly leave your app and use other stuff to supplement it.
The last major jquery app I wrote ended up using a similar reactive pattern. I had to shoehorn a custom search engine frontend into a Joomla CMS where I wasn’t allowed to change much. Good times!
"Oops, sorry, your postal votes were kept in this warehouse over there. Yeah, the one that went on fire.". There's even a documentary about it called "Succession".
reply