RaivoKulli

KDE and GNOME want to be full suites of software that offer a coherent look and whatnot.

Maybe windows rules will now work properly instead of being buggy and delete themselves…fingers crossed Imho KDE is too big, there are so many cogwheels they miss the opportunity to actually polish each and every aspect.

This release KDE has actually focused on improving and fixing more than just adding features

Well sure, but I was commenting about the downsides

It’s because of what ctrl+c does in most terminals

I guess a downside is having to fiddle with it, allowing stuff you want to get through. Sometimes it blocks stuff you don’t want blocked

That’s not the best way to sell it, me thinks lol

Source: Communist Party of India

lol

it’s pretty easy to type long commands with little typing

Big if true

I just meant that that’s often morality based, as in general public holds companies to some moral standard. Often it’s a fairly low standard though, as you’ve pointed out.

If I buy a map I don’t just drive down the road not looking out the window.

Well duh

Yes it very literally is.

I just told you how you misunderstood what I expected and you still insist on understanding me. That’s funny.

Google is providing guidance, sure, but the driver, by virtue of being present, having eyes and a brain, and controlling the fucking vehicle is the one responsible for where the vehicle goes.

There’s not just one person responsible for this. Driver, municipality, Google are all responsible in different amounts.

Google’s guidance is nothing more than them saying, “Based on our data, this is the route we think you should take.”

Yeah and they’re responsible for giving bad guidance, same as the municipality is responsible for not closing down the route and the driver for mistakes they made.

That you think Google shoulders blame in this is actually kind of a sad commentary on how some of society views personal responsibility.

You completely misunderstood me. I take part of the responsibility (lol) for it.

“It’s not criminal so they didn’t have any part or responsibility” is something I don’t understand. Of course the routing was part of the reason this happened. Municipality’s/landowner’s part is how they hadn’t closed to road, put up signage etc. Google’s part is the bad routing. Driver’s part is well, the ultimately the driving. Thinking the routing had no part in the death just doesn’t make sense to me.

how does it make any difference how long the bridge has been out for

Ample time and opportunity to fix it, even being told about the issue. Of course the time makes a difference, if the bridge had collapsed 15 minutes prior then it would be less bad on Google’s side for not having made the change.

Google aren’t actually responsible for updating a section of their map, Yes it would be great if they would do it, but they’re not actually legally required to do it.

Of course there’s responsibility for the bad routing, even if they’re not legally required to update the map/routing. I doubt the case against Google goes anywhere but to me it seems obvious they share a part of the responsibility for their routing.

They obviously have responsibility for their part… 🤦‍♂️

You are moving the bar

You previously replied to me asking if they have no part and said “that is the only logical conclusion”… If you didn’t get what I meant you should’ve probably mentioned this moving the bar then and not after you gave a silly answer to the question. Better look if nothing else.

I just talked about responsibility. It by default is a wider thing than just legal responsibility.

And no, corporations are run by thousands of people all with a wide and diverse definition of ethical. I do not place ethical standards on them whatsoever.

That’s fucking grim.

what public opinion will tolerate

What is that public opinion based on if not in part on moral judgement?

Not sure what part of my comment makes you unsure on what I think. Yes they have some responsibility.

It was a dark and rainy night and he was following his GPS which led him down a concrete road to a bridge that dropped off into a river

I think that might’ve hampered his ability to see well. Not sure how visible the drop off is in general, not to mention on a rainy night, so it could look like everything is fine and then the bridge just drops off to nothing, so it isn’t necessarily a simple case of “should’ve stopped if he couldn’t see” either.

In any case, even though the “issue” is undoubtedly his since he died and if you mean responsibility then of course everyone is responsible for their driving. I’m just saying that (imo obviously) there’s other parties responsible here too. Municipality/landowners for not fixing, marking etc the bridge so this doesn’t happen. Driver for their part in the actual driving and decision made during it. But also Maps for the routing and not fixing the map even though they were informed of the issue. Since we don’t know the specifics it’s impossible to say specifically how much each part contributed, but I’d say most of the responsibility is on the municipality.

Not really. I think they have a part of the responsibility but as with previous similar cases, I don’t think they’ll see any legal consequences.

You think it’s logical to say someone giving directions had no part in what happened? Zero part, had nothing to do it?

Right… Logical.

I’d say municipality/landowners, Google and the driver themself.

Municipality, land owners for not marking it, fixing it, making sure nobody mistakenly drives there. Google for routing him over it. Also the driver too for their part. Though not knowing the specifics it’s hard to say how much responsibility everyone has exactly but I’d say most of it lies on the municipality/landowners. Depending on who is supposed to mark those things over there.

Sure am. I just can’t wrap my head around the idea that someone giving someone directions would have zero part in the eventual accident when those directions were faulty.

You can’t just guide someone off a cliff and say “hey, I said I wasn’t sure if that’s the route, so I have zero responsibility”. The idea that that terms of service absolve them of any part in it is just lol