wanderingfool2

I was originally thinking the same thing, but they would have to have some miracle for it to actually act at the level of N95...simply because as mentioned they didn't have a one way checkvalve...so if you were breathing heavily at all the exhaust port would also be letting in air [which was away from the N95 filters]. Had such a check-valve existed I would likely agree that it might have been able to pass as N95...but in this case the evidence [not from this fine] indicates it didn't meet the requirements. Honestly, this is where I would like to see all the ads and specs they listed about this. If they were careful about saying that it contains N95 grade filters, while bad, I do think it's better than if lets say they called the mask itself N95. Honestly though, if they had some form of check-valve on it I wouldn't be surprised if it did a decent job compared to many of the N95 paper masks. [But alas it didn't]

When it gets to the point that you were victim blaming and being asinine and pedantic. You have by your actions have shown you do accept the level of wording dbrand has used; and you are willing to effectively gaslight the OP by making statements that he's effectively wrong. Trying to pass it off as just "marketing" and acting like because it's "marketing" somehow trivializes that it's blatantly a lie (again this assume no hydrodipping took place). The fact is, if a lawyer got ahold of this and wished to proceed they would likely win a case under false advertisement. Here though, I'll quote you on the things that very much indicate you accept it. What gets me is that you make a statement like this, blaming the OP essentially...when the product page DOESN'T specify it hasn't hydro-dipped it. And no hydrodip vs hydro-dipped IS NOT a big difference. [Especially when they have included phrases referring to processes involved in hydrodipping]

Personally I would say it's a similar level if they called their product "carbon fiber" without indication that it wasn't a true carbon fiber. Like if they said, "carbon fiber likeness", or "carbon fiber style" it would be acceptable. What also is terrible though is they say "We drowned the Grip Case so you don't have to" Imagine if they said "We deal with resin so you don't have to" along with the name "carbon fiber"...that is what this is akin to. Doesn't matter, it doesn't excuse lying about a product in the way they did. The idea behind false advertising is that if you don't know the brand and are just given the information about the product would you be able to properly access what you are getting. The answer is no Now this is all predicated on the fact that the product isn't hydro dipped [which isn't entirely 100% confirmed whether it is or isn't, but at least the talk in this thread so far is assuming it's not]

Ultimately the question is a whole lot "it depends". So the questions to get a more proper answer would be this: 1)What type of "servers" are you planning to run, and what type of server equipment are you planning to use? 2)How stressful is the workload you are planning to run [which I guess is kind of the same as what are you planning of running] 3)How big is the washroom, what are the walls made of/how good is the insulation in the room, and is there are least any ventilation in the room? So here is a few general things about what I was asking for you to answer, and why 1 and 2) Some server equipment will run hotter than others and be designed for more specific conditions, but lets say something like a desktop rig turned into a server it more likely is used to higher temperatures. If you are running high intensive loads though things can change quite a bit though as heat can be your enemy if the ambient temps get too hot. 3) I ask this because the more the room can dissipate head to the rest of the environment the more less likely it is to need AC. If the room is insulated and keeps the heat quite well you may find that the temps just get too high inside the room. As a reference, I had actual server equipment (mostly just hosting SMB and a few local VM's doing other stuff), all the network equipment 3/4 switches, 3 routers and security equipment. It was about 6 feet by 10 feet...but the walls were brick so it had pretty bad insulation...the room would be just passable with the door closed to run the equipment [except maybe in summer]. We did have a window AC unit which dealt with the remaining heat...but the unit did break a few times and overall the room got to about 30 degrees C so it wasn't the end of the world for the equipment [but not ideal]. The cooler you can get it though, the longer it will typically last..but the AC costs are more. Ultimately though, a good way to check and see is just try running a load in there and see what the temps are on CPU (and if server equipment it usually has an interface to see intake temps and output temps). If the room gets much higher than 30 degrees C I would get cooling the room though [personally] As a side note though, if your house is generally cooler you could just circulate the air around and it might keep it cool enough [instead of investing in AC]

I'm sorry, but that's an asinine thinking. If your acknowledement is that it's not a product of hydro dipping then it's just stupid to call it jargon vs flat out lying. To hydro dip something has a VERY SPECIFIC meaning in terms of technique used to create a product. Notice my word is Hydro dip not Hydro-dipped and to suggest just because they didn't add an 'ped' it becomes jargon instead of a lie and a non-issue is just flat out silly. While we are at it, where exactly do you think the OP should look. I pulled up the product page. I agree with the OP, the facts are simple. They called it hydrodip, which implies that perhaps it's actually made using hydrodipping They specifically say "We drowned the Grip Case so you don't have to"; which implies that the case itself would be hydrodipped if chosen. On the buy now page, there is NO MENTION THAT IT IS NOT HYDRO DIPPED. And no indication that the case itself wasn't the one that was hydrodipped [like the marketing implied]. I went as far as the checkout page where I would have to start adding my details and it didn't specify the method. So maybe take your own advice and read through before you make the assumption that it's a non-issue. I'll say it what it is, it's a bold face lie by dbrand and not some "jargon" like you are suggesting. And WHO CARES if it's jargon vs lying, it's extremely trashy and shady of a company to essentially trick consumers into thinking the product is something else.

Yes and no. While you can't wind back time, you can statements [or future statements] essentially disappear if there were NDA's involved. Generally if a contract is made whole, even if late, one can effectively reactivate terms of the contract [unless otherwise stipulated in the contract]. So like as an example, if there were NDA's preventing the talk of the payments/amounts/timeframes in a contract then if they got word of it going out, they have time to essentially silence other people before they talk. An example of the above would be if J2C had an NDA of that, and they paid him prior to the release of the video...IF the two things happened, then you wouldn't have gotten his video. Getting sued for defamation, at least here, wouldn't actually work if the presentation was on information gathered. Also, it's more typical to do legal threats prior to a story being released vs waiting for the story to be released. hmm, I'm not sure it's as uncommon as you think it is with the threatening of the legal system (there have been a few articles I've seen where they called the bluff of legal action as well) At least in Canada, and I believe the US, there doesn't really even need to be a legitimate reason to send a cease and desist letter. Also there is the general concept of not committing/breaking any laws until you are notified of certain things as well. An example of this, if you were to learn about a product in development from an informant and run with the story; the informant could get in trouble for breaking trade secrets. If you asked for a comment, and the company stated that it's a trade secret, sent you a cease and desist and you still publish it then you can now also be held liable. That's the thing though, I don't really view it as unethical of what GN did; given the information given. While I do admit there is a fine line, the information in this one I do agree that a comment from EK wouldn't change the sheer number of statements made against it [given that some of those statements were also backed up]. I'm not saying it's contested information, I'm saying that it could be things like breach of contracts etc. We live in a weird world, where you can be liable for posting the truth and where massive amounts of liability can be shifted towards you simply by being notified

An issue that I would say though, is when a company has shown to be/threatening of being litigious the whole thing can be complicated. Especially if some of the sources were already hit with demand letters. It can create a scenario lets say where they push for litigation if anything is published, which can create an unfair balance in the opposing direction or worse get an article killed before publication. I can't really talk about it too much, but getting pieces killed before and the pre-posturing of "facts" prior to an article running is a thing that happens. Not saying this would have necessarily happen, but lets say he did reach out to comment what would the chances be that they rushed out payments to the other creators to help stem the negative videos that surface about them afterwards. Or another scenario being, what if they threatened with a cease and desist order after the comment. The thing would be that at that point publishing an article could become a whole lot more costly if they do decide to sue; as it's no longer just a presentation of facts and adding opinion to what it means but it becomes a violation of a demand letter effectively e.g. if lets say they claimed confidential information in the cease and desist letter prior to publish and lets say the courts agree, it would be a whole lot easier to now essentially bankrupt GN than it would be if they weren't put on notice. Not saying that it would have happened, but just saying I've seen how the "deeper pocketed" person can silence a story when they get wind of it

What really annoys me though is that the only thing they get in trouble for is the fact that they used the term N95 in their marketing [even though it might be using N95 grade filters like it was apparently advertised]. I'm assuming there is more, but generally I think it would be better to have laws that enforce deceptive products in a marketplace in general [not just because the term N95 was used]...don't get me wrong, I think this mask was terrible at protecting as they didn't include things like a 1 way check valve, but it seems like they might have still used N95 grade filters...just the design of the mask didn't make it N95 cert. So while I do think it's bad using N95 in marketing especially with a health kind of product there should be better laws surrounding things in general. e.g. MasterLock and their absolutely garbage locks that they sometimes rate quite high [that can be opened with a simple comb pick]. Or when WD starting selling 7200rpm drives as "5400 rpm class" drives. Or the whole "military grade" classification Even "Chocolaty" as they don't use chocolate There should be just general laws surrounding all intentional misleading claims.

I would say it would be more akin to not putting the defendant on the stand to testify if you have enough evidence. Overall, I don't always really feel that they should reach out to comments when something like the threat of lawsuits already is going on. Asking for comments could actually cause proactive steps to be taken to prevent the piece from coming out/changing the narrative. While not exactly the case, I know of one scenario where an actual journalists website where he was posting articles was taken down by a person in authority over "articles" being written about the authority. The thing is, the journalist had already won multiple lawsuits filed against him as what he reported contained only facts that were backed up by documents...but that didn't stop the authoritative figure from using lawsuits against the webhost [after the lawsuits against the journalist failed]. This resulted in the webhost terminating the website. While it's not necessarily akin to this case, EK in the investigation already appeared to have gone the legal route in trying to block people from speaking; so the request for comment could potentially have gotten GamersNexus into trouble [it's a lot easier trying to kill a piece with the threat of a lawsuit than it is to kill one that is already published] As a side note, I see a lot of the code of ethics constantly being breached by journalists all the time. You quickly realize that most news organizations already omit stories/twist the facts

They do in effect have a password...it's just not an user provided one. For ones where you have to enter pairing mode, that's when the passwords are effectively communicated. For others that are always waiting to pair, like some TV's...a quick passphrase/code is put on the screen where you have to put it into lets say your phone. It's that that confirms the correct system is being pair [and from there the devices do essentially a key exchange aka password which is used for future communication]. That's not to say that there can't be exploits with bluetooth, just that it's more likely device specific exploits you need to find. Not really...you have to find an active exploit in order to do that. At that stage it would be easier to just smash the window to get into the house. Well the biggest one would be if it's done with a keyboard, then you would essentially run an application to essentially gain control of their computer...from there you effectively have a spying device on the persons computer.

The biggest issue is that if they were to reach out it can allow people to kind of cover up/start making excuses before the article comes out...or in a case where there was already threats of lawsuits against others, they could try legal action to stop/hinder the investigation. Depending how quickly the company can act as well, they could "rectify" a few of the situations and claim they had already paid and thus discrediting GN. If the evidence speaks for itself, then I don't think there is necessarily a reason to reach out especially since it gives the company a head start on spin doctoring the narrative

I would say, if the person is providing a heavy workload, it might be possible to at least maintain water at a temperature that would produce decent enough coffee. The biggest thing is you would need to really super insolate the water container and pipes to make sure that you don't lose any of the heat of the water from the CPU/GPU. I wouldn't necessarily say it lacks the wattage, because you should be able to heat up water to almost the temperature...it just will take a really really long time to the point of essentially being impractical.

While I do kind of agree with what you said, there are still other aspects like the fact if they know about particular users/activities and choose not to enforce policies to kick them off the platform [it happened on Twitter a lot...like the time that they got a report and essentially decided that the child wasn't abused so the video remained up] The biggest thing is that it protects them from class actions if everyone has to go through arbitration...and often times arbitration can become a lot more lopsided as the party can often pick where and who are the arbitrators. e.g. If Discord were to decide snoop on everyones calls and sell it to advertisers, everyone would have to go through the arbitrator and prove it over and over again making it not worth the costs for effectively a few dollars.

Within a company you could have essentially the "publisher" and "developer" still. Just like the whole concept of "engineers vs marketing department" [with almost the real world case of RCA being the example]. You get the pencil pushers who come in and demand certain things, and the developers are stuck essentially doing that...so in this case there is still a potential the dev team might not have known/wanted it a certain way but the team in charge of essentially the numbers were the ones who pushed it. In general in regards to this case...I would be pretty mad. It will be interesting to see what the original terms were though, as how they define DLC...if they didn't really specify I could see a class action. Overall as well, I'm not 100% sure how to feel about this. If it were me, I would be mad, but at the same time if it is a greatly different feature set that changes gameplay itself I could see it as being not DLC, but at the same time it really sounds like it's in a whole grey area. After all, I'd argue a lot of DLC could also be considered a "feature" it's just about to what degree it is a feature. At the very least, I think those who had purchased the previous pack should have been granted a very small fee to also purchase it...as they are the whales and you really should pander to them more instead of making them feel ripped off.

The way I view it, it's just another way of control I'm not saying that some content shouldn't censored or that there shouldn't be some rules in place, but banning a company solely because it's majority owned by a company in a country that isn't viewed as well upon shouldn't be a thing. Under that premise, we should be banning Intel/AMD and almost every piece of electronics because China has control over it and could install backdoors into the chips. In regards to the whole "protect people and politics", I think that in itself is a flawed approach overall. We already exist in a world where the social media companies have already been shown to do exactly what they are accusing TikTok of...and yet none of them have been banned. e.g. Lots of silicon valley workers who are employed in effectively refereeing the algorithms have political biases, and in some high profile cases they have used it against publicly stated policies to eliminate certain information. The prime example of this was twitter and the last election. Ultimately I would say, if the people want to use it let them use it. It's all okay trying to educate people on misinformation, but ultimately the US itself is one that has their hands in a whole lot of stuff. Other notable examples. US asking MS to hand over data on servers not within the US itself. PRISM The thing is this is even before the corporations do things for their own favor. You have Meta which pushes for their own purposes etc.