Your pet peeve, technical or otherwise.

[james_s]

No, they don’t “always” try to make the package mimic the old one. Standard metal food cans just got smaller. What I consider deceptive is with things like detergent bottles where they added larger air spaces in the foot of the bottle to make it appear the same size.

(To me, the word “scam” goes beyond simple deception, and shrinkflation doesn’t rise to that threshold, even if it is irritating as hell.)

Well call it what you want, but it's clearly deliberate deception used as an attempt to conceal price increases. Sports drink bottles that were 32oz are now 28oz, they're the same size except there is a squeezed in band around the middle. Ice cream bars that used to come in boxes of 6 are now being sold in a box of 3 that is the same size on the shelf but half as thick. I find it offensive that companies think they can slip this sort of thing by me and I'm much less likely to buy the product than if they just raised the price.

[AndyBeez]

Reminds me of that old gag:

  Honey, what's for my dinner?!

  Dunno sweetie. The label fell off the can.

Yeh but seriously, when I was a kid we had Cola in 1 Litre cans.

[Nominal Animal]

(To me, the word “scam” goes beyond simple deception, and shrinkflation doesn’t rise to that threshold, even if it is irritating as hell.)

Righty-o!

English dictionaries describe "scam" something like "a fraudulent deal"; with "fraudulent" meaning "dishonest", "based on deception", or "based on fraud"; with "fraud" meaning either the crime (illegally obtaining money via deception) or "any act of deception carried out for the purpose of unfair, undeserved and/or unlawful gain".

To me, that means "scam" can vary anywhere from "simple deception" to "deception for the purpose of undeserved and/or unlawful gain".  You happen to lean more towards the latter, I happen to lean more towards the former; but none of us is wrong, I don't think, as there is no exact definition.

In other words, I think it was excellent that you defined what the term means to you, because that anchors your position in measurable terms, and makes it possible to reflect it against ones own.  That makes it quite useful.

It is one of my own pet peeves when people do not do that.  It makes arguments less than useful.

[IDEngineer]

deliberate deception used as an attempt to conceal price increases

I can't remember what product right now, but I do remember being extremely offended that an outwardly identical container suddenly had a "false floor" consisting of a gridwork that extended up from the bottom into the container space. From the outside it was exactly the same, but a significant percentage of the volume had been eliminated by redesigning the container. That one was deliberate subterfuge. There's no way to color that as anything but dishonest. Heck, companies change their packaging size, shape, coloring, etc. all the time for no reason other than "marketing", often with phrases like "Bold new container, same great taste" or whatever. To specifically AVOID changing the container's outward appearance while shrinking the deliverable... I'm sorry, that's just intentionally dishonest.

[PlainName]

The 'Seriously' cheese spread line is like that. Small-ish containers which look like all other similar ones on the shelves, but built so the bottom is actually half an inch or so above the floor which, for that size tub, is a big proportion of the contents. No indication on the outside that the bottom is false, and the tub is even plastic so there's  no structural reason for it.

[mfro]

The 'Seriously' cheese spread line is like that. Small-ish containers which look like all other similar ones on the shelves, but built so the bottom is actually half an inch or so above the floor which, for that size tub, is a big proportion of the contents. No indication on the outside that the bottom is false, and the tub is even plastic so there's  no structural reason for it.

I remember these to be 125g and the content weight prominently indicated on the top cover. Now they are 110g and the weight nowhere to be found?

[SeanB]

New Improved recipe. How can it be both new and improved, except for the improvement being that they got rid of the more expensive ingredients.  Just like the big seller being "plant butter", which is just another way to say, without actually saying it, that this item, priced to be close to that of real butter, is actually just much cheaper margarine with a fancy package and upsell.

[Nominal Animal]

"plant butter"

Please tell me that does not refer to hydrogenated palm oil!

That stuff is incompatible with my digestion in any but the smallest amounts.  Small amounts give me the runs, large amounts to an empty stomach make me barf.
When I was younger, I was fine with it, but no longer now.  I have to check the ingredients because of it.

Here in EU, I do believe "butter" is only allowed to refer to the dairy product itself.  (It is definitely a law here in Finland; no margarines can have "butter" in their name.)

[mfro]

Here in EU, I do believe "butter" is only allowed to refer to the dairy product itself.  (It is definitely a law here in Finland; no margarines can have "butter" in their name.)

Certainly. Only 100% pure butter is allowed to be called butter. Even the butter/oil (and water, most of the time) mixtures they sell as easily spreadable are not allowed to be labeled "butter": https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62011CA0037&qid=1669046495414

Some might that call nitpicking and overly bureaucratic, but I find it just fair when you get what you pay for.

[Circlotron]

 When a bank or similar financial institution markets and describes some kind of service they are offering as a “product”.

[TimFox]

Here in EU, I do believe "butter" is only allowed to refer to the dairy product itself.  (It is definitely a law here in Finland; no margarines can have "butter" in their name.)

Certainly. Only 100% pure butter is allowed to be called butter. Even the butter/oil (and water, most of the time) mixtures they sell as easily spreadable are not allowed to be labeled "butter": https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62011CA0037&qid=1669046495414

Some might that call nitpicking and overly bureaucratic, but I find it just fair when you get what you pay for.

In the US, "butter" is reserved for the dairy product, but "peanut butter", "almond butter", "apple butter", etc. are allowed, and are not likely to be confused with "butter".
21 US Code 321a:
"For the purposes of the Food and Drug Act of June 30, 1906 (Thirty-fourth Statutes at Large, page 768) “butter” shall be understood to mean the food product usually known as butter, and which is made exclusively from milk or cream, or both, with or without common salt, and with or without additional coloring matter, ..."

[ncc]

When you are updating the firmware on a gadget ( radiacode 101 ) and windows interrupts it to tell you that your machine isn't "Windows 11 Compatible". 

#1, I didn't ask if it was

and

#2, I now have a $400 paperweight because of it. 


I hate windows more and more each day.

switched 2021 to Debian Linux only, and after some pain, it is just so much better: no tyranny anymore!

[james_s]

switched 2021 to Debian Linux only, and after some pain, it is just so much better: no tyranny anymore!

My Windows 7 laptop suffered a motherboard failure about 6 months ago after it fell off the back of the sofa. I bought a parts machine to use to repair it and switched to an older Thinkpad with Linux Mint on it. I still haven't got around to repairing the Windows machine, Mint is working fine for my needs.

[pcprogrammer]

Left Windows behind me 8 years ago. Used Linux Ubuntu and Mint instead and like these very much. But to play games from the steam platform it still is the go to OS and once in a while I do play. Hate every bit of Windows though. Last Sunday my brother asked me to join a game of Halo, so I booted my machine into Windows 10, and it started with some setup screen Had not used it for almost a year, so I was like  and no, I don't want your bloody office suite or cloud storage or whatever shit you have to offer. I just want to play my game. Luckily I have 1Gbps fiber internet, because next up was steam. Had to update Halo before I could play it. 66GB needed to be downloaded. With 100MBps for most of the time it did not take long

[SilverSolder]

I use Win 7, 8, and 10 daily...  as well as Linux.

All of these machines "just work",  especially Win 7 and Linux!     -  the reason Win7 works so well nowadays is that there are no updates, so MS doesn't keep messing with it, lol

[IDEngineer]

the reason Win7 works so well nowadays is that there are no updates, so MS doesn't keep messing with it, lol

No "LOL" about it. That's one of the KEY REASONS Win7 is ideal for Engineering work: It doesn't keep changing configuration without your notice and approval. Once you have it configured, it "just keeps working" the way you set it up.

In my world, I need my tools to stay configured the way I configure them. It can take a while to dial in a given tool to the configuration that suits my use of it. And once configured, I do NOT want anyone (including the "we know better than you" vendor) to ****ing change ANYTHING on it. Period. Exclamation point. Full stop.

If Microsoft "permitted" this on Win10+ I'd switch. But as it is now, they literally waste their user's time (and therefore money) forcing them to constantly fight back and undo/redo configuration details. Every time the air turns blue in our home lab/office I know Microsoft has forced another download onto my wife's machine. The blueness of the air is my wife expressing how she feels about it.

If MS wants to offer a "babysitting mode" that the user can enable/disable at will, that would be the best of both worlds. Those users who want or need the handholding can opt in. Those of us who need things to stay static can opt out. WTF is that so hard?!?

[rdl]

I don't know anything about Windows beyond 7, but much of the automatic crap it does in the background is controlled by the Task Scheduler. No matter how much Microsoft claims it's vital to proper functioning of the pc, It's really not and it can be turned off. My Windows 7 machine has been running fine without it for close to a decade.

I've been using Debian for a year or so, and so far I'm not that happy with it, probably need to try some other flavor.

[james_s]

I don't know anything about Windows beyond 7, but much of the automatic crap it does in the background is controlled by the Task Scheduler. No matter how much Microsoft claims it's vital to proper functioning of the pc, It's really not and it can be turned off. My Windows 7 machine has been running fine without it for close to a decade.

I've been using Debian for a year or so, and so far I'm not that happy with it, probably need to try some other flavor.

Windows 10/11 make it MUCH harder to turn off all that stuff. Especially updates, it's Windows "as a service" which absolutely nobody asked for, but it means they own it and control it and tinker with it as they see fit and you just get to use it.

[IDEngineer]

Indeed! Task Scheduler is one of the first NT Services folks should disable. You actually don't need very many of the default Services running at all.

A good measure of a Windows configuration is the number of running processes reported by Task Manager. My machine has 41 processes when there's nothing running in the foreground.

[jonovid]

MS Windows assumes we all have our head stuck in the clouds , are all female & are somehow working as a group.
when actual fact this a personal computer!.  so the odd default settings.
 

[pcprogrammer]

In the end every OS sucks

[IDEngineer]

it's Windows "as a service" which absolutely nobody asked for

I remember back in the Steve Ballmer days, during an interview he said something like "We get paid when you buy our software, but if you're still benefitting from it years later why shouldn't we be compensated then too?"

That told me everything I needed to know about Microsoft in particular and SaaS in general. They're going to have to do some serious penance to restore their reputation before anyone like me would trust them again.

[SilverSolder]

it's Windows "as a service" which absolutely nobody asked for

I remember back in the Steve Ballmer days, during an interview he said something like "We get paid when you buy our software, but if you're still benefitting from it years later why shouldn't we be compensated then too?"

That told me everything I needed to know about Microsoft in particular and SaaS in general. They're going to have to do some serious penance to restore their reputation before anyone like me would trust them again.

The whole concept of "do something once, and then get paid forever" seems unsustainable...    think about it, if everybody did that... 

Basically, if you are running an OS locally on your own hardware, you should be given the choice of owning or renting like in other areas of life. 

Unfortunately, all the whizz kids are fixated on the idea of creating "forever revenue streams" out of everything, and then selling those revenue streams as overpriced stocks...

Eventually, subscription fatigue builds up... even the dimmest consumer eventually realizes that his/her entire paycheck is already spoken for by all the subs, and they barely have a penny left for an avocado toast.  They have no choice but to review all their subscriptions and keep what they actually need...  and enough people will be smart enough to buy, rather than subscribe to, the products and services that they need long term.   The current economic downturn is probably exacerbating this effect...

[james_s]

I remember back in the Steve Ballmer days, during an interview he said something like "We get paid when you buy our software, but if you're still benefitting from it years later why shouldn't we be compensated then too?"

Oddly I don't think they or any of my other former employers are going to be interested in compensating me now for any benefit they're getting from work I did back when I worked there. I want to buy something once and then use it until it no longer meets my needs. I absolutely do not rent software. I very rarely rent anything at all, even tools it's usually not much cheaper to rent than to just buy one.

[AndyBeez]

Subscriptions don't just trap consumers, they go messy when a business finds a subscriber cash cow has been taking a long dump on the IT budget. Forget not the other consumer traps in the EULA, like agreeing to have the software call home with 'diagnostic' information - such as location, network details, usage stats and your screen cam view [just to check it's you using the 18+ rated PCB design software]

I don't rent SW either [only beer]. Buy it, use it, upgrade it. Much cheaper than paying $10 a month for the next millennia. Yes, I can hear the accountants yelling cash flow, quasi leasing and allowable business expenses, but I ain't that guy. I noted the other day a networking program I use has a pro version that used to be $49. It's now $8 a month. A bargain? No sh*.

Related to software, my peeve de jour is in-app purchases. All app stores feature freemium software, free to download with in-app purchases. So what ARE those in-app purchases? How much do they cost? What do you get for the purchase? Is the purchase a one off or an open subscription? Not a single App Store is transparent. It's rather like going into a restaurant, asking for the menu and receiving an otherwise blank piece of paper that reads, "pay the Chef." Prices have to be clearly displayed, is the law in most western countries. Except on the internet.