quirzle

like we’ve learned absolutely nothing from the experience

We've learned a lot, it's just what we've learned is about the nature of our employers and our value to them.

vSphere was never available in the free tier.

No human would be dumb enough to park there.

There's at least 3 other cars parked there clearly visible in the videos.

The reality is that nobody's learning much useful from Free ESXi, as you need vCenter for any of the good stuff. They want you using the eval license for that, which gives you the full experience but only for 60 days.

Still, there's a lot of folks running free ESXi in labs (home and otherwise) and other small environments that may need to expand at some point. They're killing a lot of good will and entry-level market saturation for what appears (to me at least) literally zero benefit. The paid software is the same, so they're not developing any less. And they weren't offering support with the free license anyway, so they're not saving anything there.

I don't believe it was, based on the other cars present in the videos.

Seems like the witnesses saw it differently.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/02/12/waymo-set-on-fire-sf/72567647007/

"They were putting out some rage for really no reason at all. They just wanted to vandalize something, and they did," witness Edwin Carungay told KGO-TV.

The witness told the outlet the Waymo was vandalized and set on fire by a big group of people.

"One young man jumped on the hood, and on the windshield.," Carungay told KGO. "That kind of started the whole melee."

What about contacting them and telling them you'd like to place an order but won't be because of the long wait times (which should reflect in the apps if they're striking)? You can include a suggestion that they pay a fair wage to attract enough drivers to meet the demand they're failing to meet.

Sure, if you're willing to count my house as a "fence," otherwise the same logic would make you liable if someone breaks into your house and drowns in your bathtub. Of course it's not likely at all, but if someone were to smash down your front door to commit suicide in your tub, nobody's going to argue that's your fault.

I'll agree that leaving a firearm laying in the open in your back yard should be criminally negligent though, so can get behind that much of the pool analogy.

I’m not saying that is the case here, but I’d like to know if it is.

It's not. The reason I called out the specific Nanovault in another comment was that a friend had locked his (the gun bumped into the internal button to change the combination and it had gotten changed and was unknown, another ridiculous design flaw). Rather than mess around with cracking the new combination, I shoved the blade of my pocket knife into it, twisted it, and it popped open. Literally the same amount of effort/force and sticking a key into a keyhole and turning it, but without needing the actual key.

After realizing how secure it wasn't, he decided to test the other one he had before replacing them. Picked it up and dropped it from about waist height onto the garage floor (empty, no gun in it). It popped open, sending little plastic bits from the locking mechanism everywhere.

Yet, these are generally considered to meet the California legal standard of "a locked container or in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure."

I disagree. The safe or trigger lock does nothing in this example, making them functionally identical situations. You're literally suggesting making it illegal to be burgled but legal to be robbed, which is an asinine distinction.

And you're implying that not using a safe or trigger lock means no precautions are taken. If the gun is in a locked house already, is that not "secure"? It's as secure as a knife needs to be to not be a liability if stolen and used in a crime. Hell, a locked building is sufficient security for a pyrotechnics company to store their literal explosives.

I also specifically disagree that the barest of minimum (as you're describing it here) is better than nothing (as defined as no safe/trigger lock). A gun locked in one of these in an easily accessible room meets your "barest minimum" criteria, but is more easily stolen than one hidden in a non-locking box in a locked apartment.

I think the better solutions focus on harsher penalties for the theft itself and more laws/enforcement around failure to report thefts.

The "safe storage" laws are usually pretty worthless just on how they define "safe" on top of the actual problem with enforcement. They're not meaningful in any practical way, as anyone responsible enough that they should be allowed to own a gun already locks their shit down.

People who only lock their firearms away because they're required to are the reason shit like Nanovaults are so popular. They're a good-sounding concept, but in reality are held together with flimsy plastic internals. You can literally pry them open with a knife or housekey, or even just slam them onto the ground to pop them open.

tl;dr: Given the lax legal definition of a safe, using one doesn't necessarily add any meaningful security.

As an aside, I have safes for valuables and documents I'd like to survive a housefire...but I don't have any record of owning them. Were they stolen, I don't think it'd be easy to prove I didn't have them.