Could that back fire? There are cases where humans judge taking no action because it avoids costs as inherently better than taking action to bring in profit even when others in general are better off. I could see a lot of people getting mad at being charged for updates which cost money who wouldn't get mad when there are no updates because the company doesn't want to lose money making free updates. It's almost like a section of society judges not helping as better than helping for some price, even though anyone who doesn't want to pay is no worse off than if they were never given an option. I see this trend outside of business as well.
It would certainly not be good business for a consumerism-centered brand like Samsung and it would even be suicidal for Apple to suddenly start charging for updates. But for an Android brand built around sustainability, like e.g. Fairphone, it could be a considerable credibility gain if they replaced a promise of future gifts with a proposal for future business.
No matter how updates happen, if they do the effort will be paid for with money coming from the customer, one way or the other. Any payment scheme other than pay on delivery requires trust and that specific form of trust has evaporated a long time ago.
Is there any similar writeups of the fishing glitch where you get the fisherman to sit on the tree and then go fishing? That's one of the two I found as a kid. The other gave me some super item but I never could recreate it.
Being on a jury gave me the opposite experience. The guy who slept through parts of the trial was given as equal a say as those who stayed awake and the topic of them sleeping was a joke to many of the jurors. Charisma counted for more than reasoning. It made me have a lot more believe in the statement that the innocent seek trial by judge while the guilty seek trial by jury.
The problem? Because those actions are discrimination. Using discrimination to fight discrimination largely targets the under privileged members of the privileged groups.
It's basically a call for equity instead of equality, except it is limited equity which automatically assume some do not need equitable help. It is also limited in how it's applied.
Find the actual problems causing any modern day biases and fix those. Personally I work with some kids to help them love math. In my (admittingly anecdotal experience) there is a bias noticeable in middle school for all kids to not like math that evolves into a gender bias but to some extent hurts both genders' ability and desire to learn. Identifying and remedying the cause of this would do more to help both girls and boys than targeted aid in high-school or college.
The second half of your last sentence is the key to the issue, IMO. People calling things racist, and yet those who agree with the things being called racist seeing those name calling ignoring similar behavior weakens the concept of bigotry.
My favorite example of this is the legal system. The legal system is racist against blacks and Hispanics because it is harder on them. The legal system is also sexist against women because it is easier on them. When someone sees both of these views together, the entire concept of bigotry is called into question.
And it's becoming a self parody as well. People are now being called transphobic for being unwilling to have sex with a transsexual they aren't attracted to. A gay guy who is only attracted to people with a punishment is now a bigot... what? Yeah, that view isn't by any means common yet, but it has been appearing online for a while now.
So the Best Buy employees were in possession of child abuse material and even used it to make profit? Sounds like they should be charged for abusing children. Merely viewing it or possessing it harms children, so no excuses. Even the FBI shouldn't be allowed to posses it.
I bet Trump supporters are happy nothing bad about Trump was leaked and no foreign news networks ran ant hit pieces on Trump. He probably would have lost if that had happen.
/s
Besides for the illegal action of actually doing the hack, I don't see how this is any different than all the news stories attacking Trump.
During my time in college I took multiple ethics and related classes and in my opinion they aren't worth the paper I printed class assignments on.
None of these answer practical issues like what happens when the law is bad or when one's livelihood is on the line. None of these give practical advice on how to fix a society where ethical behavior is not inherently incentivized.
The problem is finding which point was wrong. What behavior was done here that should be discouraged or banned by society? People don't like the outcome, but where should the government intervene?
