Pika

I understand this but, I don't understand why there is two fees for it. They have a 30$ electric vehicle fee on registration ontop of the existing cost, and then also plan to have an electric charge per mile fee later on. Like at that point remove or alter the 30$ charge to be all vehicles. They are trying to double dip.

I don't like that they are planning to have both a electric vehicle fee and a per miles charge fee later on. Like it should be one or the other, not both. Otherwise they just need to make the 30$ fee for all vehicles.

That makes sense. I hadn't really looked at it from the angle of most apps are going on devices anyway. Mine was just because of the fact that it's super annoying having to have my phone on me at all times for two-factor authentication. Especially considering that most 2FA apps require you to sign in in order to use them anyway.

Also, yeah, that was my ideology when I threw them into my password manager. That if they can manage to breach a device, find my private key that's used to lock the database and figure out the password for the database. Something far worse has gone wrong and losing my passwords is the least of my issues.

You are correct in that statement. There is no federal mandate for breaks or meals, which is super shitty. However, there is a requirement for at least a meal break in 21 of the states which vary in requirements, some even extending to normal breaks.

The alternative for people who want a convenience factor is putting it all in the same location. For example, the only thing Authy for desktop closing did for me was make it so I no longer had an isolated app for both 2FA and passwords, because now it's just all in my password manager.

I don't always have my phone on me 24x7, so the inability to access things on my desktop is a massive nope for me.

The way I looked at it, it's no different than having a mobile device with a password manager on it, because if someone steals your mobile device, they have access to everything as well. So the two-factor authentication apps shouldn't be on desktop argument never made sense to me, mobile is the same way.

This application might make me go back into having the two isolated systems, because it removes the massive inconvenience factor

Cancelling the deal does leave 15,000 homes in northern Ontario which had been promised high-speed internet without it.

$6,666 per household doesn't seem like that good of a deal to me, especially since it would still be like 100$ minimum per household per month for internet, for a company that is out of country as well. I'm a little surprised they wanted to in the first place... just throw that 100M into infrastructure. Like sure it won't go as far but, in the long run, it is more cost effective and allows for domestic business, where it is just 100M down the drain investing into a US based company giving it pretty hefty sway. Like what would be the contingency plan for if starlink had decided that Ontario wasn't worth covering anymore? like sure there was likely some form of fee involved but, you would be back to square one + being out the 100M

Just to make sure we are on the same page then, cause I don't see the issue with my post.

I am using the term "Graceful Degradation" which is meant as a fault tolerance for tech stacks to allow for a critical component to be removed.

This critical component people are talking about is Javascript which is used for all dynamically loaded content, and used for fallover protection so one service going down doesn't make it so the entire page goes down (also an example of fault tolerance).

The proposed solution given would remove that fault tolerance for the reasons I provided in the original reply, while degrading the users experience due to increased page load time (users reloading the page inconsistently vs consistently to get new information) and increasing maintenance costs and overhead on the provider.

Additionally, the new processing system that you mentioned already exists generally doesn't, because they(websites) mostly use a dynamic load style nowadays, not a static(as in the client doesn't change it) page, which is what this type of system would require.

note: edits were for phrasing, and a typo

personally I think this is mostly due to for some reason people tend to give up on visiting a website if it takes more than a second or two to load(guilty as charged though), so instead they load a mostly blank page (which gives the sign that its loading) and then use javascript to load the rest of the content in.

that and fucking ads galore

my only issue with this ideology(the require page load) is, this setup would essentially require a whole new processing system to handle, as instead of it being sent via events, it would need to be rendered and sent server side. This also forces the server to load everything at once instead of dynamically like how it currently does, which will increase strain/load on the server node that is displaying the web page, while also removing the potential of service isolation between the parts of the web page meaning if one component goes down(such as chat history), the entire page handler goes down, while also decreasing page response and load times. That's the downside of those old legacy style pages. They are a pain in the ass to maintain, run slower and don't have much fallover ability.

It's basically asking the provider to spend more to: make the service slower, remove features from the site (both information and functionality wise) and have a more complex setup when scaling, to increase compatibility for a minor portion of the current machines and users out there.

this is of course also ignoring the increase request load as you are now having to resend entire webpages to get data instead of just messages/updates too.

I think that the video data shouldn't be available to the airline period, let the investigation and regulatory agencies deal with analyzing it.

this life hack I went like 4 or 5 years on ebay without knowing. I always went by the prices off the filter, was so much easier after.