I upgraded a year ago and I bought a bunch of extra RAM because it was "so cheap", why not. Man did I get lucky, I got it right before the price hikes started.
Same, my desktop is a top end full of ram beast that I thought I overpaid for because motherboards had gone up. Bought everything before the surge. Past me was damn lucky. Wish I had bought some stock tho.
I was trying to figure out slow network speeds one day and I finally swapped an ethernet cable and got full speed.
It turns out some ethernet cables are missing wires - and capped at 100Mbps! Wait what? I didn't even know that was a thing. I don't know where I got the wire, but into the trash it goes.
You're on to something here. It doesn't seem like a lot of catches. There's a distinction in juggling between "flashing" and "qualifying" n objects. To flash n objects, you throw and catch them n times. To qualify n objects, you throw and catch them 2n times.
It would be incredible if someone qualified 14 objects.
> For something free I can get why this would seem unreasonable (modulo scams, for which this is a hoop I would rather have than not), but if money's involved, a consumer should be able to contact a human and be made whole, and having the money be handled by a company (even if that company is just a one-man-show) honestly does not seem unreasonable.
You're buying a digital good. You can already get refunds. An email address is fine for contact.
You definitely don't need someone's physical home address, nor an actual phone number.
Apple is the analog to the local electronics store. They're the ones with the direct relationship with you, they're the ones you paid, they took a 30% cut off the app developer's top line explicitly under the pretext that they handle the whole store arrangement.
And sure enough, they are in fact the ones who can issue a refund if you need one. The developer cannot. By design.
> Apple is the analog to the local electronics store. They're the ones with the direct relationship with you, they're the ones you paid, they took a 30% cut off the app developer's top line explicitly under the pretext that they handle the whole store arrangement.
Yet I can also ask Dell for a refund despite buying my Dell at my local electronics store. Both should be reachable and both should be able to give me a refund if my item is broken.
> And sure enough, they are in fact the ones who can issue a refund if you need one. The developer cannot. By design.
No, Dell will not give you a refund for something purchased at a retailer. For general returns and refunds, the retailer is on the hook because they're the ones who actually took your money.
What Dell will do is repair or replace a computer that is still under warranty. They won't refund.
I don't understand how this functions in practice: if business A sells a widget to reseller B who sells it to reseller C who sells it to the customer, there's multiple layers of markup. How can the original manufacturer be expected to refund the purchase price?
Reading the law, it does not say that the consumer is entitled to a refund.
> if business A sells a widget to reseller B who sells it to reseller C who sells it to the customer, there's multiple layers of markup. How can the original manufacturer be expected to refund the purchase price?
Simple. They operate within the law and provide the customer with a refund, or they get fined. From the consumer's point of view, this is irrelevant. Business can fix this B2B issue between themselves however they wish, so long as it doesn't affect the consumer. If you don't like it, then don't do business here.
Here's a case where a consumer complained directly to the manufacturer,[1] and the Consumer Disputes Commission ruled in favour of the consumer.[2] It's not even the core of the issue, but just mentioned, since it's settled law.
> Reading the law, it does not say that the consumer is entitled to a refund.
Refunding is one possible remediation, see section 32 (cancellation) and section 26 (The consumer's rights in the event of defects). That option cancels the purchase contract, meaning you as the consumer give the item back, while the seller gives you the money you paid for the item.
'Innklagde er klaget inn i kraft av å være produsent av syklene. De er følgelig ansvarlige
for kjøpsrettslige mangler etter direktekravsreglene i fkjl. § 35.'
Rough translation: 'A claim is lodged against the defendant due to it being the manufacturer of the bicycles. The defendant therefore liable for for defects accordance with the rules on direct claims set out in section 35 of the Act relating to consumer purchases.'
[2] They didn't rule in favour of the consumer's demand to have the manufacturer pay for their jacket that got damaged following them falling of their broken bike. They did rule in favour of the cost of repairing the bike (a new handle bar that the consumer bought themselves to fix the issue), so the manufacturer is on the hook for that.
> Refunding is one possible remediation, see section 32 (cancellation) and section 26 (The consumer's rights in the event of defects). That option cancels the purchase contract, meaning you as the consumer give the item back, while the seller gives you the money you paid for the item.
Only if the manufacturer fails to fix it per section 31: "If the defect is not rectified and no redelivery takes place pursuant to sections 29 and 30"
Correct. They get one shot at correction, and if the fault isn't gone by then, refund it is (or the seller can just jump straight to a refund if they want to). You'd be surprised how often this happens.
Fair enough, I didn't realize Norwegian law had this provision. EU-wide and US law do not, so this is pretty specific to the Nordic countries from what I can tell.
The joys of consumer protection. This one is fairly old (2002), and doesn't have any origin in any EU law, although I would have though that the EU had something roughly equivalent by now, and if they don't, they really should.
After the cold war has ended, the western nations focused on not giving a fuck about military strength, allies or facing opponents the size of Russia or China. Instead some small-time infantry campaigns like Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan were started and then basically abandoned without any decisive result or even with a total failure. But even back in the 2000s, there were no common goals and no real alliances, just some commitments to save face and keep up appearances.
So now, Russia in Ukraine and Iran in the Persian Gulf have called the bluff that is Western military power and decisiveness. I'm guessing those were just the first instances of a long line of wars that should have been prevented by the US-lead West, that are now possible because the West is fractured and aimless.
Interesting choices, to frame the US-Iran war in the same terms as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as if Iran was the aggressor, and to frame the invasions ("small-time infantry campaigns") of Iraq and Afghanistan, which led to millions of lives lost, in the same terms as the comparatively minor US intervention in Syria.
The common thing is that there were no desired results because the west decided to do some half-assed thing and just go with the minimum amount of force and troops. Also, some parts of the west decided to start/intervene/participate, while others abstained. In short, nobody cared enough about the goals and about their respective western allies to go in with a heavy force, accept some losses and do the job properly.
Of course circumstances, reasons, participants and histories beyond that were different.
Hopefully, Europe has learned its lesson. The way it was handled post-WW2 is pointing in the right direction.
WW2 was the direct result of that "historically consistent belligerence". Simplified history: lots of tension in Europe -> WW1 -> screw you Germany, we won -> Hitler: we are not having it! -> Germans: that's the guy we need! -> Oops -> WW2.
That why they did it differently post-WW2, focusing more on international collaboration (and a little indoctrination, you don't want to miss an opportunity do you?).
Also, Europe is not the center of the world anymore, they have better things to do than infighting.
