I think you're being disingenuous in that you're only looking at half the story. I don't use AirBnB either as a host or a guest, so I may be missing something here, but to me, this seems to fall squarely into "this is why we can't have nice things" territory.
Of course, if you have someone over for coffee, there probably is no issue. Of course, if you have many people over for a crazy party, there will probably be a boatload of issues.
The problem is there are plenty of dishonest people who'll try to skirt their responsibilities in the in-between situations. Maybe it's difficult to hide that you've had 50 people over. But if you're renting for, say, 4 people and you have 10 more people over? I'd guess it's not directly evident. So if those people aren't hell-bent on thrashing the place, but you know, shit happens? Perhaps the guest will try to say that the couch already had a wine stain, or the dishes were already chipped, or whatever. And if a neighbor complained about the noise? There were just four of us, we kept it reasonable, but we can't be completely mute.
So of course hosts will try to hedge against these behaviors. And, of course, people trying to be reasonable will get the short straw. Next thing you know, water will be found to be wet or something crazy like that.
We have to err on the side of humanity. Wear and tear and some bending of rules is part of the human condition and should be considered the cost of doing business in the STR space. I believe increasing neurosis, anxiety, and social dysfunction can be explained by increasing systemization, surveillance and rigidity in the world.
>The problem is there are plenty of dishonest people who'll try to skirt their responsibilities in the in-between situations.
And the hosts who want to use strict enforcement of rules that were designed around not being enforced unless something bad enough to notice had happened bear no blame?
Are they not just as dishonest?
What about the internet cheerleaders who validate such behavior with their "rules are rules" ignorance, as if things were that simple?
Sure? I mean, multiple people can be dicks at the same time, even to each other. That doesn't absolve the other party.
My point was that saying "it's only hosts" or, indeed, "it's only guests" is not fully honest.
Edit:
I think the underlying thing is hard to set out. Basically, it's "don't be a dick", and it applies to both hosts and guests. But how do you enforce that? So this devolves into a situation where everybody tries to pin the blame on the other, and / or make sure to cover their ass as much as possible.
Which brings me back to my general point: this is why we can't have nice things.
I've been constructing my own fantasy that there is an emergent-trust-group-of-respectful-people where "nice things" are just normal.
Perhaps implies an opposite group of defective arseholes together?
Maybe aspirational but the idea is to just be reliably good and eventually others trust you and you become part of a trust network.
I've had it happen at the scale of individuals: once you've shown you're trustworthy and unselfish then many people seem to respond to that with goodness.
Most people can smell selfishness such as "manifestation" thinking. I find it difficult to be generous without intent of obligations. I believe it only works if you're genuinely good with no strings attached.
Kindness is easier.
I'm no fan of karma or religion or magical woowoo: even though ultimately the idea perhaps has the same roots as those.
It isn't reciprocation: that is transactional investment. Reciprocation definitely works fabulously well. However it has debts and credits, and I have some sort of unreasonable antipathy towards those both. We live in a transactional society, and many people inspect every action of others for their needy goals. Or people have their own currencies and balance sheets.
I try to frame the fantasy more rationally as an emergent behaviour of society as a response to defectors.
So far my main negative proof against the whole idea is that I've had life pretty good even though I have been normal levels of selfishness. I'm still working on how that fits in.
Meanwhile I'm giving the experiment a good go. I like to test against my own reality. Finding I'm wrong is usually valuable.
It's a poorly thought out fantasy. Too many reasons why it is broken: Like seeing givers enable takers, or selfish people winning good things.
I don't know how it is where you live, but most apartments where I've lived in Paris didn't have dedicated wiring for the lights in the "living" spaces. They had them in the bathroom / hallway / kitchen, but not in the living rooms, for example.
My current apartment has dedicated circuits in the living room and bedroom. But in the living room they're in awkward places.
I always had to resort to multiple lamps that would plug into an outlet so I could place them where I needed them. Running 12 V for the bulbs would require rewiring most of the apartment.
Now, I'm not against having a new socket standard. But it would have to be connected to 220 V.
That is fairly typically in the US as well. Most often there is a switch in the living spaces, which controls have the outlet half of a duplex outlet. Plug something into the top (sometimes bottom - there is no standard) and the switch controls it so you can get the lights on/off when you enter/leave the room, plug into the bottom (again sometimes top) and it is always on, perfect for whatever else you have in the room.
Its not like your bulbs are plugging straight into your wall outlets. You've got some kind of lamp fixture that the bulbs screw in to, correct?
Your lamps would still plug into mains, same as they do today. The lamp fixture overall would contain the driver components, hopefully in packaging which lets it manage heat well and have good build quality. But whatever parts do fail routinely should be able to be easily replaced with some kind of standardized socket. It just seems like we're trying to squeeze too much too cheaply into a form factor that's ill suited for the requirements by trying to shove all the driver circuitry into the same envelope of an older Edison A-shape socket style bulb.
This has already kind of been a thing for a while with low voltage halogen lamps. The bulbs themselves aren't made for mains voltage, the lamp structures themselves give the right voltage for the halogen mini bulbs. I've replaced a few bi-pin halogen lights for LEDs with drop-in replacements (especially for outdoor lights), but this same kind of bulb packaging hasn't really been very common for interior lighting from what I've seen.
> Now, I'm not against having a new socket standard. But it would have to be connected to 220 V.
Why would it need to be 220 V in the "socket" for the bulb? Why do we need lamps themselves to just be a frame to hold a wire, why not put the driver circuitry in there to step it down to whatever voltage we decide to drive the DC LED bulbs at?
> Why would it need to be 220 V in the "socket" for the bulb? Why do we need lamps themselves to just be a frame to hold a wire, why not put the driver circuitry in there to step it down to whatever voltage we decide to drive the DC LED bulbs at?
I was talking about the lamp itself. Maybe I used the wrong term? I meant the fixture which holds the wire and expects a bulb. That fixture needs to go into mains, because that outlet may have to also service something else entirely.
Now, sure, usually those fixtures tend to be larger than the bulbs, so they could hold the conversion circuitry. I'd be fine with that. But the commenter I was replying to talked about having an alternative DC circuit for the lights.
Sure, and we can have that too, in the places where the lights are built-in to the ceilings or cabinets or whatever. When we have lights in the ceilings, the fixtures again can handle this specialized LED bulb style. And one might even link several lights into a single DC circuit for all the lights in the room versus having each individual light do its own AC->DC conversions in compromised envelopes.
> What does an HR person know about training for your role?
IME they don't know anything about the training itself. But they don't work in a vacuum, so there will be training programs set up by "regular" staff, and HR will make sure that you have access to them, that you attend your training if it's mandatory, etc. They'll also ask you if you need any kind of training you're not getting, and figure out a way for you to get it. Again, this usually involves the "technical" staff. They're typically facilitators.
This is what I've noticed in two medium-sized companies in France.
Why is that weird? I remember when I was a kid, I tried to imitate what my parents were doing, too. Lucky for me, we didn't have smartphones at the time.
I picked up tinkering and sitting in front of a computer from my dad. And, even then, my parents would prevent me from doing this too much, and send me to read a book or go outside and run around.
Not all your data, just the data exchanged with that person.
But how could you force this? They could always copy it or whatever. Yes, I know, defaults.
But this would then need to be somehow enforced on the other side, right? Like preventing copying, or screenshotting, etc. And in that case, see the HN thread the other day about applications messing with these functions and how people want their devices to be theirs and not controlled by some third party.
You gave the answer yourself. If the person you are writing with has E2EE enabled for message backups then just exclude that chat from backups on your end or enable E2EE for that chat. That means if you take the restore route without having access to the keys that conversation will not be restored.
You could even let people overwrite that setting. Preventing screenshots or copying has nothing to with this. Apple is claiming that message are end to end encrypted when in reality their defaults are set so that they are not. That is a lie and al they would need to do to change that is to change those defaults.
Note that this is a concept, I've never seen an actual production model look anything like the concept.
My father has a hybrid model, 2023 MY I think. It has physical controls for the radio, for AC and related things, for the heated seats, for the various "driver assist" features (like auto high beams, a parking thing (no idea what that is), radar, lane assist). It has a touchscreen, but that only seems to handle the maps, fancy radio controls (think equalizer and such), and other "car settings", whatever those are. You can absolutely drive it without ever having to interact with the touchscreen while doing normal things. I hate touchscreen controls as much as the next HN poster, but I have strictly 0 beef with the Corolla on this front. Door handles and windows work exactly the same as on my 2005 "dumb" car. Hell, I think it even has a physical toggle for the "automatic night mode" on the rear-view mirror, while mine couldn't be "non automatic".
To GP's point, I don't think it ever was an "entry level" car, just a "normal compact" car. I don't see why adding an electric drivetrain would have someone expect it would somehow become a basic, "entry-level" car.
I don't say we don't need those, but the Corolla never seems to have targeted that market, at least here in Europe. There always were plenty similar-sized cheaper and more basic cars from domestic manufacturers. Is it different in the US?
I don't say we don't need those, but the Corolla never seems to have targeted that market, at least here in Europe. There always were plenty similar-sized cheaper and more basic cars from domestic manufacturers. Is it different in the US?
It's a very basic car in the US in terms of its price bracket, not quality. There is just very few new cars under $30K in the States, the manufacturers are milking the SUV / truck market.
> I've never seen an actual production model look anything like the concept.
As an exception to this rule, the original Audi TT was surprisingly similar to the concept car and even the initial concept sketches. They had a crazy design idea and just went with it.
For the dishwasher, I don't have such a need. But for the washing machine, I find it helpful to get a notification when it's done. I usually close the bathroom door while it runs, so I don't hear when it's done and will often forget about it.
Dishes can sit in the dishwasher after it's done for however long it takes me to remember to unload them, but leaving damp clothes in a closed box is something I'd rather avoid.
Personally I just set a timer. Having a wifi connection to have your appliance use an api to ping your app which has to be signed in introduces quite a lot of failure modes.
Do you happen to know when this regulation came into effect? I bought a Siemens (same thing as Bosch, only with a different badge and colors) in 2023 and it only has a single ECO cycle that takes like four and a half hours. There's no other ECO cycle in the app, either.
That cycle is available via a button on the front panel and is actually the one that came selected by default. I can program it from the front panel, too. I think the app allows loading some more "special" cycles, but I never understood what those were good for.
All the functions of the washer are configurable through the front panel (water hardness, telling it it's connected to the hot water tap rather than the cold, how much rinse aid to use, etc).
I have an LG combined washer/dryer (I've used the drying less than 10 times in 3 years). I picked it because it wasn't too deep, so it could fit nicely in my small bathroom. I'm happy with how it cleans, but sometimes it will have an issue where it won't start spinning fast, because it has some sensor that detects that the unit shakes too much. It actually does shake, but it seems to have a hard time spreading the clothes so that it doesn't. Sometimes it will waste a good hour trying to start spinning. Not sure if it's somehow actually broken (like a busted damper or whatever), but this issue seems to have increased in frequency. And it does it both when there aren't many clothes and when it's rather full.
Right. Where I live, there is plenty of vandalism. Breaking public benches, defecating in public toilets outside the bowl, rampant littering when there are trash cans all over the place, etc.
There's no financial gain in that. Doing this won't get you healthcare (we've got socialized healthcare anyway, and it's pretty much free for "the poor"), won't help you eat. It's just stupid, antisocial people. How would giving them money help any of that?
Of course, if you have someone over for coffee, there probably is no issue. Of course, if you have many people over for a crazy party, there will probably be a boatload of issues.
The problem is there are plenty of dishonest people who'll try to skirt their responsibilities in the in-between situations. Maybe it's difficult to hide that you've had 50 people over. But if you're renting for, say, 4 people and you have 10 more people over? I'd guess it's not directly evident. So if those people aren't hell-bent on thrashing the place, but you know, shit happens? Perhaps the guest will try to say that the couch already had a wine stain, or the dishes were already chipped, or whatever. And if a neighbor complained about the noise? There were just four of us, we kept it reasonable, but we can't be completely mute.
So of course hosts will try to hedge against these behaviors. And, of course, people trying to be reasonable will get the short straw. Next thing you know, water will be found to be wet or something crazy like that.