subignition

Young Americans can already barely pay for food and rent let alone luxuries like entertainment

You’re right, it’s not a bad analogy, you’re just failing to make a cogent point. Even though you’re trolling, I’ll bite:

“Using a grocery store” encompasses everything from buying fresh ingredients and cooking your meal (assembling a computer from parts, customizing it to your liking) to buying entrees and sides you like at the deli (ordering a custom build with parts you picked, letting someone else do the legwork) to buying whatever TV dinners are on special in the freezer aisle (walking into a Best Buy or Apple Store and buying anything with a screen, because you need a computer and don’t care about the details)

“Hunting for all of your food and cooking it from absolute scratch” would be what, writing all your own software? Fabricating your own CPU from silicon? Obviously vanishingly few people are doing that, though there certainly are people with electronics knowledge going more granular than slotting parts into an ATX motherboard. But that’s not what myself (or anyone in this thread from what I can tell) is advocating people do. If you think it is, you grossly misunderstand FOSS. I’m genuinely curious what you think I’m getting at by saying some things are overly simple.

What I’m frustrated with, to use your analogy, are the companies making TV dinners who don’t even include the microwave wattage in their vague instructions on the box. And subsequently, the customers buying them, turning an already mediocre product into a disastrous result, and trashing the company on social media. Then reaching out to the manufacturer only to be told they just need to buy a new microwave. Sometimes the customer doesn’t even bother to read and puts the TV dinner in the oven instead, then gets mad when their kitchen fills with smoke and their dinner is inedible because of the melted plastic.

…No. I am saying that too much abstraction of how something actually works is detrimental to the end user. It’s not about making things intentionally more complicated, it’s about removing the need to understand key components of something ultimately causing more harm than good.

What are you even talking about? You’re trying to make an analogy here but it’s a really poor one.

Keep in mind this status quo is already the result of decades of oversimplification. I am not saying everyone needs to compile the Linux kernel in order to have a computer. I’m saying you should have a basic level of familiarity with the computer you’re using, same as any other tool.

You should know how to check and top up your engine oil, change a tire in an emergency, etc, if you’re going to own a car. You should know how to safely handle, operate, store, transport, and clean your firearm if you’re going to own a gun. You should know how to empty the chamber or bag, clean the filters correctly, what not to suck up and how to troubleshoot if you do, if you’re going to own a vacuum. You should know how to operate it, when and how it should be cleaned, and what not to do while it’s running, if you’re going to own an electric range. You should know the difference between a web browser and your computer’s filesystem, the difference between RAM and storage, and that you can Internet search most errors to judge whether you’re comfortable trying to fix them yourself or not, if you’re going to own a computer.

There will ALWAYS be a point where it’s more worth paying someone else instead of learning something yourself. But it’s about the cost-benefit analysis, and the threshold for what’s considered “intricate” is a depressingly low bar where computers are concerned. As I’m sure you are well aware.

You should not expect to use a tool (edit: competently) without spending time learning how to use it. Photoshop has a learning curve too, even if it’s an easier one.

Big tech designing their products to be overly simple is one of the driving forces behind the average user having poor patience and aptitude for tech.

That’s terrifying.

I also wonder whether this could let someone sing or speak outside their normal range. When I was young I was in the school choir - after puberty hit and my voice dropped, I still had the muscle memory for high notes that my vocal cords would not allow.

Holy forking shirtballs

They’re called programmers, and it’s faster and less expensive all around to just have humans do it better the first time.

A surface-area maximizing structure like a radiator grille could probably be used if it’s anywhere near reasonable, but yeah, that could be a concern

If a “passive dehumidifier” is possible using this and a funnel/hose, that could be extremely exciting for basement and cellar owners everywhere

I did get it right my dude, you didn’t read past the title. I didn’t say it was IN the title. Please get some sleep.

Tell me you didn’t read past the title without telling me you didn’t read past the title

It tests your ability to remember and navigate routes, in an environment that’s explicitly non-Euclidean. And you have to think out of the box sometimes to solve things.

…damn I need to play again. I think it’s been long enough now.

It’s SO GOOD. If you’re reading this and you like puzzle/mystery games, play it now, play it blind, and have a pad and paper handy.

Since when does anyone refer to North Koreans as Norks 🥴

You could’ve chosen not to victim blame, but yet you did it anyway.

All banks in the US have similar authority, please see my lengthy post under the CFPB link elsewhere in the thread if you are actually here to discuss rather than sling cheap insults

TL;DR:

• If it’s an ATM or one-time debit card transaction, you have to opt-in for them to charge you a fee
• If you didn’t opt-in, they are still allowed to cover the overdraft if they want to by taking from other accounts you have with them, they just can’t charge you an extra fee for doing so.
• If the overdraft is due to a preauthorized/recurring debit card transaction, a check, ACH, or other transaction not covered by 17(b)(1), your consent doesn’t matter, they get to charge you a fee.

Please look at the wording of 17(b)(1), emphasis mine:

Except as provided under paragraph © of this section, a financial institution holding a consumer’s account shall not assess a fee or charge on a consumer’s account for paying an ATM or one-time debit card transaction pursuant to the institution’s overdraft service, unless the institution:

The opt-in requirement is ONLY for ATM and one-time debit card transactions. For a preauthorized or recurring transaction like dinckelman was discussing, that does not apply.

Also some relevant sections of the official interpretation of 17(b):

2. No affirmative consent. A financial institution may pay overdrafts for ATM and one-time debit card transactions even if a consumer has not affirmatively consented or opted in to the institution’s overdraft service. If the institution pays such an overdraft without the consumer’s affirmative consent, however, it may not impose a fee or charge for doing so. These provisions do not limit the institution’s ability to debit the consumer’s account for the amount overdrawn if the institution is permitted to do so under applicable law.

8. Outstanding Negative Balance. If a fee or charge is based on the amount of the outstanding negative balance, an institution is prohibited from assessing any such fee if the negative balance is solely attributable to an ATM or one-time debit card transaction, unless the consumer has opted into the institution’s overdraft service for ATM or one-time debit card transactions. However, the rule does not prohibit an institution from assessing such a fee if the negative balance is attributable in whole or in part to a check, ACH, or other type of transaction not subject to the prohibition on assessing overdraft fees in § 1005.17(b)(1).