I've had a negative experience with Deskhaus's customer service. Their product is good, but if anything goes wrong during its life you may have trouble getting a response.
In my case I wanted to ask about replacement parts because it seemed like a power surge might've knocked out the box controlling the desk - didn't get a single response despite reaching out via email and their contact form, not even a "We don't sell replacement parts and you're on your own" reply.
Devil's advocate: if they've been doing this for years (and I do agree wholeheartedly with you personally) then has it really been detrimental to game health? Presumably they have metrics indicating positive growth or they wouldn't be pushing in this direction.
Maybe it just means old players like us are no longer the target and it's to the long-term benefit of the game to tell us to pound sand as they have for years.
I don't know if there are other achievements but the one with the "What did you expect" text popping up really made me laugh. Good foresight anticipating players like me.
5 minutes to make a burger from start to finish isn't the same as making 12 burgers per hour - the machine can probably prepare multiple burgers at a time (just speculation from the video, of course).
>For example, I'd love it if my work VPN could be prioritized over someones pron torrent during internet rush hour.
That would be great for you of course by why should ISPs get to determine whose packets are more important especially if the entry criterion to being important is basically "pay up"? What if the reverse were true and other users' packets were prioritized over your work ones simply because Netflix, YouTube, Valve, etc. could afford it and your company decided not to?
Am I missing something here? I'm genuinely curious why anyone would think it's a good idea to surrender control over something that directly affects their everyday comfort, especially if it's air conditioning in Texas.
Sure, I agree that special steps should be taken, but in our age of automatic/transparent updates and data longevity I think we need to re-evaluate the immediate responses taken by law enforcement when restraining orders are violated.
It's not at all far-fetched for scenarios where apps automatically send messages to current/previous contacts without the user's consent (in fact we've seen this time and time again). Should the immediate response really be to jail the offender, especially if the process for proving intention one way or another can be long and arduous? Because if that's the case, what we're really asking is for people with restraining orders to become technology-shunning luddites since they can't guarantee the apps they use won't have mined their connections in the past, or that apps they've stopped using after the restraining order don't send messages on their behalf.
You're right of course, but I struggle to view the world in such a black-and-white manner to be honest especially when there are black boxes like in play, Google+'s source code in this case.
How much proof would have to be provided that the Google+ invitation was sent deliberately by the user? Sworn testimony from a Google employee? There can of course exist bugs that send invites erroneously that nobody knows about. Revealing of the source code and analysis by experts? Unknown bugs can still exist, especially in systems as large as Google's.
Stepping back from this particular case, what about apps that scan your contact list and automatically send invites and/or messages?
These situations aside, it's far too easy to accidentally send an invitation. Hell, I don't doubt that many people reflexively agree to prompts on websites they think they're familiar with. Of course the argument can be made that people with restraining orders must be more careful, but it just doesn't seem sane to me that people can get jail time for clicking a button on a prompt that most people wouldn't think twice about.
Torrent or not, I want to see if any of my less tech-savvy friends are on the list so I can warn them even though I don't use Snapchat myself. It's much easier to convince them there's a real problem if I can say "Look, I can get your phone number and username from the Internet just like that" rather than explaining theoretical reasons why they're vulnerable.
I ran into this issue as well, as it turns out it's 'cause I already had Fallout from a previous giveaway. If you click the little 'x' beside the games you already have from the list shown when checking out, you can uncheck the box that says you're gifting the pack and proceed to check out as normal.