Stoicism says something similar, although it gets there via a very different route.

Yes.

The thing with science is that you can’t just accept things because they seem obvious. The scientific method exists for a reason. Sometimes things that look obvious turn out to be false, and sometimes proving an obvious thing to be true is a necessary first step to have a solid foundation from which to build other more nuanced hypotheses. Either way, the point is that studies aren’t all about finding some new and surprising conclusion. Sometimes they’re about taking something you were pretty sure of already, and making it into actual science.

From his own comment, he’s signing the NDA because it’s the only way to find out what Meta want, and he figures knowing is better than not knowing. At no point has he indicated that he’s going to work with them at all, and an NDA doesn’t give them control or any guarantee of cooperation.

£5 says he comes back and says “I can’t discuss details because of the NDA, but… no” and it goes no further.

Apparently the viewport was rated for 1300m, and they were driving to 4000m. The fact it survived as long as it did is testament to the manufacturer’s standards. The fact that it failed is utterly unsurprising.

Also the inspector they hired to verify the sub’s safety was denied when he requested equipment to scan and test the hull integrity, was fired when he raised these concerns, and was sued for leaking company secrets when he tried to report it to OSHA.

Honestly the only surprising part is that it survived the previous thirteen dives before this one.

It’s more, point out past employers’ flaws where it doesn’t look like an excuse for your own, or where you can use it to show that the reasons you left that employer totally won’t apply here because this place is better in exactly the ways you’re looking for.

Interviewers don’t mind you describing flaws in a company to explain why you left, if those flaws are real flaws. What they hate is when a candidate blames their failings on the company rather than honestly identify and take responsibility for their own shortcomings.

What that means is that if you’re going to say something bad about a former employer, keep it brief, stick to factual, provable things with minimal emotive content, and describe how that meant they’re a bad fit for you. If you can describe a way your employer did things badly, explain why you weren’t in a position to change it, and then describe a better way that you wish they’d do and that happens to line up with how your potential new employer does do things, that can be a good way to show you’ll fit in because you agree with their practices or management style or whatever it is.

Part of it will depend on what data you’re holding, and part will depend on who’s running the instance. A lot of people won’t be covered, but I’d wager there’s some here and there who need to consider it.

Plus Logitech gear is, in my experience, pretty well made. My Logitech joystick lasted easily ten years, and I’ve got a Logitech mouse that’s about twelve years old and still works fine.

The EU is also working on Right To Repair legislation that iirc has something to say about reasonable prices for repair supplies and spare parts. In that case, even if only Apple-made batteries work, they’d still be affordable, or at least within a reasonable percentage of what they actually cost and not marked up enormously.

Parts of it may actually be required under EU law. GDPR requires that anyone holding data on EU citizens comply with certain things, including a request to delete certain kinds of data. The EU has shown themselves willing to go after sizeable corporations for violations; most Lemmy instance operators are much smaller. This should probably be addressed before people find themselves on the wrong end of lawsuits.

This is why Right To Repair is a big deal. Not just because it reduces waste by fixing what might have been thrown away, not just because it allows you to do what you want with the device that you supposedly own, and not just because it breaks the monopoly and requires pricing of repair services to actually be competitive - although all those things are important. It’s also because if a device can be repaired, some people will be encouraged to learn how to repair it, and in doing so they’ll learn a valuable problem-solving mindset. We need to be mindful of how we first introduce young people to technology to avoid this learned helplessness and instil the attitudes that will allow them to function when they’re adults and it’s now their job to look under the hood and make it all work.

A whole generation has been raised with tech that just works and if on the rare occasion it goes wrong, it goes very wrong and either needs IT/Customer Service/etc to fix it for you because the problem is very technical, or it’s just broken and you get a new one. This means they have no problem-solving skills because none of the problems they’ve faced were solvable, and they’re scared to get it wrong because getting it wrong breaks things in ways that are bad and expensive. Coming into an environment where trial and error is now not just ok, but expected, is a reversal of some deeply ingrained habits for them. That doesn’t mean they can’t learn, but it does make it a bit of a culture shock for them.