So far, it appears to be a very convincing argument to the supreme court most of the time.

It's about not being able to find any employment due to age discrimination, not really "retirement", which is an euphemism.

That's not how it works at banks nor phone vendors.

(Although, even being able to open a ticket would be 100% better than the black hole of nothingness that is google support.)

When you go to a bank with access issues (something I've done somewhat regularly because I manage accounts for various family members who no longer can) you meet with someone who can authenticate you, and that employee has direct access to talk to their risk and fraud departments so they can sort out any issues while you're sitting there next to them.

There needs to be a law that any cloud service with a non-trivial userbase must have a similarly staffed support center reasonably accessible to all citizens.

Bank accounts and credit cards can be had for free, and if you can't get one from one place there are literally thousands of other places to try.

(Also I'm not sure how one can't get some bank account? I grew up very poor and still had a bank account in my teens. Credit cards, indeed, can be much more difficult. But these days pre-paid cards exist which is a way in.)

In contrast, there are only two choices for phone platforms and neither is cheap and both require a recurring nontrivial monthly expense. So no, not at all comparable.

Also, credit cards are free to get and checks cost a few pennies.

Not remotely comparable to being forced to buy a phone to get to a game.

It is completely unreasonable, but for a different reason. This is not technology A (paper ticket) vs tecnhology B (phone).

It is about open vs. proprietary. Paper is paper, it does not forcefully tie the user to anything. A phone is a requirement to be forced to do business with one of only two megacorporations, for something completely unrelated. He wants to buy a game ticket, not a phone.

Imagine you want to buy a sandwich but are told you must first buy an earring, completely unrelated and not something you want.

Notice how phone carries manage to have a shop in every little strip mall, you're never more than a few miles from the nearest one. Google takes in far more revenue, can easily afford the same. Or they could even just partner with the phone carriers and have a staffed desk in every tmobile/at&t/verizon shop.

Stallman was always right, after all.

That's a sensible position. But if you want to lead a team then you must be responsible for any failures in the team as a whole.

It's not easy. I've had very low performing employees in my team but I'm still responsible for the productivity of the team. My management isn't cutting me any slack just because I have a low performer in the team. If the employee is not doing the work then I must find a way to fill in the gaps until I can replace them. Usually that means I get to do all their work and all my work until a replacement is hired.

Indeed! In basketball terms, a manager should be the MVP in Assists. They don't score directly but they set up plays for you so you can succeed. It's then up to the employee to act on it and score.

The best managers I've had are of this type.

Somewhat, yes. It has nothing to do with you. Some opportunities you can create yourself, go for it. Other opportunities only arise in the context of leadership meetings you are not a part of (by definition, if you're not the manager). Having a manager in those meeting push for your opportunities is priceless.

Having had many managers who don't do this for me and a few that do, definitely want the second kind.

It's even better than that, there is a single sound for each letter individually. Put together those sounds and that's how the word is deterministically pronounced, no guessing or learning (or even understanding) necessary.

That is the big picture here. Details aside, one company should not have the power to dictate how developers write software for their customers, just because those happened to purchase hardware from the big company.

If you think of this in terms of how the world existed prior to mobile, it would've been insane for any general purpose compute device (Apple ][, C64, IBM PC, etc).

Whether the case or not here (I don't know), taking a look at the big picture: Imagine if in the 90s Apple could come in to a software company and dictate what development practices and account management they must do to ship software for a Mac! Would've been instant outrage. Anyone was free to write and ship software however they liked. How low we have fallen to allow near-monopolies to dictate terms.

Not "even if" though, it is "particularly if". The big boys don't have to care, so they don't care, because what are you going to do. They have all the power, you have none.

If you are going to depend on a third party it is best to depend on small ones where they need you as a customer as much as you need them as a service. In an equal relationship you can always reach a human to have a dialogue about any issues that arise.

Of course, if you're targeting a mobile platform, you're out of luck. Best to target the open web if at all possible.

You might be surprised to hear how heavily government directed and subsidized food production is in the USA.

> That's bad and a central part of the problem.

Why? Or to ask in a different way, how could it not be?

For nearly all regular working people, there is nothing they will ever buy that costs more in labor and materials than a home. So of course it will be the most expensive purchase most people ever make. How could it not be?