>So yeah, why is that? And is anyone else tired of the constant barrage of subscriptions for things that should be one off purchases?
It's extremely tiresome. And surely the only motives are profit and control.
It's gotten so bad that now auto manufacturers are charging monthly subscriptions to use features that are built into the car that you have already purchased.[0] It's a disturbing trend that will eventually have to fall short somewhere down the line.
Not sure if I understand, but the article gives a number of examples, such as:
> Mary knows that she could control her pain if she could take vitamin pills, eat a special diet, and go to physiotherapy. She can’t afford it. “Mary identifies poverty as the driver of her MAID request,” Gibb-Carsley writes on a slide accompanying her talk, emphasizing the. “She does not want to die, but she’s suffering terribly and she’s been maxing out her credit cards. She has no other options.”
I'm only asking because I have a domain that also uses a certificate from Let's Encrypt / R3 / ISRG Root X1 and I've never had to renew it. (It seems like they auto-renew every 90 days?)
>Both groups agreed on it being fully aware of Google's revenue, and if Google had the revenue of an average company it's likely neither side would have suggested the amount. Somewhat revenue based.
It says absolutely nothing of the sort in the article. Seems like yet another assumption you are making.
By the same logic, both groups are fully aware that Google starts with the letter G, therefore the size of the fine is based on the fact that Google starts with the letter G.
I'm really not trying to be an asshole here, but please don't go around saying things that you don't know to be true.
>The size of the fine likely is somewhat revenue based
What? Says who? It's just a number that the ACCC and Google both agreed upon. FTA: The ACCC and Google jointly submitted to the Court that a penalty of $60 million against Google LLC was appropriate, and that no separate penalty against Google Australia Pty Ltd was necessary, in circumstances where the Australian company was not responsible for the preparation of the screens which the Court found were misleading.
FTA: The ACCC’s best estimate, based on available data, is that the users of 1.3 million Google accounts in Australia may have viewed a screen found by the Court to have breached the Australian Consumer Law.
Exactly this, hit the nail on the head. If anyone thinks this isn't all happening because US mid-terms are coming up, they are delusional or lying to themselves.
>Passkeys use Touch ID or Face ID for biometric verification
I was under the impression it was very poor security to use something like a face or fingerprint as a password... Okay for a username, but should be avoided at all costs for passwords.