| |
| ▲ | andersonpico 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Do people complain about being scammed with Windows They do. They absolutely do. Where have you been in the last 20 years? Windows has had a reputation as an unsafe ecosystem for decades. Even amongst non-tech people. And even with the various exploits the biggest source of viruses on windows was always that, lacking a proper channel to distribute applications, they had trained their users to double click any .exe on the internet and the next>next>next in whatever installer. I don't agree with the tightening of developer account requirements, but this argument doesn't hold at all. | |
| ▲ | DashAnimal 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't necessarily like the idea of a company wiping their hands clean and saying "well - not our problem!" either though. Companies shouldn't wait to solve issues like this - they should be proactively helping their most vulnerable users. That is the "do no evil" motto. I don't know enough to say whether this method is the right approach however. | | |
| ▲ | rcMgD2BwE72F 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >Companies shouldn't wait to solve issues like this Unless you built your house yourself, you should expect the construction company to be responsible for verifying the identities of anyone entering your house. Asking for a passport and a one time payment, just in case the person who rings the bell may not be a friend. That should be proactively helping you in case you're a vulnerable homeowner. Not checking in on every visitor would be evil, no? I can't think of a better approach. | | |
| ▲ | akerl_ 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I lived in an apartment building, and one of the upsides was that the building had a security system and a front desk that helped control who could be wandering down my hall. | | |
| ▲ | rcMgD2BwE72F 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Me too. But we, owners, collectively choose that. We choose the security company, we pay then, we can vote them out. Most importantly: the construction company has zero say in this. Also, no one actually check the IDs of my friends, and they don't have to pay the construction company when they first come. I give the codes, they ring, I open. I hire a company to monitor the building but I can kick then out any day. I own the place, you see? | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Doesn't really seem like it fits the analogy. Even ignoring that, I doubt they were checking passports and collecting tolls from guests, right? |
|
| |
| ▲ | Zak 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Saying that computer/OS manufacturers should prevent malware is effectively equivalent to saying that they should not sell general purpose computers to the public. A general purpose computer is one that can run any program the users tells it to, which necessarily includes one that's malicious. That doesn't necessarily preclude helping the user to notice when they're doing something dangerous, but a waiting period before the computer becomes general-purpose seems pretty extreme. | | |
| ▲ | bitwize 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > Saying that computer/OS manufacturers should prevent malware is effectively equivalent to saying that they should not sell general purpose computers to the public. (in Gilbert Huph (Wallace Shawn) voice) Yes, precisely! | |
| ▲ | charcircuit an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The general consumer does not care about the distinction of if a product is technically a "general purpose computer" or not. They care about if the device is able to do what they want from it, providing them value. |
|
|
|
