Yep, for the developers, here's a clue: Unethical actions are not a last resort, they're a complete non-starter.

They don't know that and they may not care until it's too late.

OK turns out you can't disable that mode. Nor can you remove devices unless you actually have them to sign out on the device itself (tough luck if you wiped that device). And "Note: If you sign in to your Google Account on any eligible phone, Google prompt will be added as another method for 2-Step Verification." So - yeah. Forced on with a method I don't want - typical for Gurgle.

I dunno, I get push notifications despite not really caring too much about my Google SpamMeWithAds account (I probably should care more than I do). I never signed up for MFA it was just enabled on me. Can't see a way to switch it across to my preferred method either, it was an attempted signin that said something like, "Look for the authentication message on your Android phone". Glad I wasn't without it (given again, I didn't request the change).

Just because something is old does not mean its value is (now) negative. Or are you arguing that "everything older than arbitrary date X is by definition broken, not scalable, not secure" or something?

You can have technical debt today from new code you wrote yesterday, when what you wrote for PHP 8 suddenly gets neutered because someone found a massive security hole and the PHP team deprecates a library function from the next release (yes, this is a contrived example). And at the same time, there will be code you wrote for PHP 5 which is still valid and doesn't need to be reworked.

The problem is that unless you're a large corporation, your requests are ignored until you hire a lawyer to state them more forcefully. Large corps have agreed side-doors to organisations to "limit the costs of compliance" or similar, I'd bet. Look at Youtube's preferential treatment of the music pimps for example.

There's a balance to be struck. If someone always (unconsciously) uses "I" when talking about something, people can wonder if they're a lone wolf or if they're taking credit for what others did. If on the other hand, someone only uses "we", then maybe they're not promoting their own capabilities (or they have little to offer). Reality says that you need both in most senior scenarios other than perhaps cookie-cutter jobs - you need someone who can achieve things on their own, but also work well with others when called for or needed. Experienced candidates often use both I and we when talking about work to indicate that they achieved certain things themselves, but also that they recognise it was a team effort overall.

Not that I think AI has a snowflake's chance in hell of telling the difference.

No, because then there would be no reason not to publish it.

Excellent. Explain how Microsoft makes it painful - when new browsers and OS have been available for decades, and updates are pushed hard (some say too hard, well, this is the outcome if you don't push)? It's generally shitty apps, not the OS.

It means that server is configured to allow ancient protocols in addition to new stuff. This tends to create situations where a MITM can force the downgrade in security so your conversation is now TLS 1.0 instead of 1.3, possibly without you knowing. There can also be other mitigations in place, but if memory serves, anything from the last decade should be 1.2 compatible.

There was nothing asshole-ish in that response. I agree that not being an asshole is valuable, but there's a big gulf between speaking the truth or highlighting your point of view, such as, "Non-lonely, Non-jerk" and being an asshole, which might be something like, "Fuck you and your family, I hope you get a bottle of wine stuck up your ass".

If you're ordering Vietnamese food from a Thai restaurant (because Grubhub screwed up the menus), and it happens to come from a Chinese restaurant instead, is that OK? It's multiple lies wrapped up in a nice convenient ball just for you. If it doesn't taste right, or has the wrong ingredients (which is worse if you're allergic to something common like, say, mushrooms) who do you blame? It'd be the restaurant. So some Thai place gets slammed for the wrong food delivered from an unnamed Chinese restaurant (or back-alley kitchen) and you don't think that's a problem?

They also don't control the content you see in your mail app (such as Outlook or GMail). They don't control the content you can browse with the web browser (though I realise they force everyone to use their engine). If there's a web app, you can use it - they don't control those apps either. Taking those points into account, the "reviewing the content/apps" line falls very flat.

The maths doesn't seem to be quite right. Your 1000 users at $180 per annum with the 83% discount (so basically 1/6th outlay) would be $30K. Still high (no breakout costs to compare to for Teams, unfortunately). But Teams is part of the E1 plan, which is about AU 130 per annum (retail!!!) per user - so if you assume it's 10% of the total "value" in an E1 for the sake of the argument, then 1000 users would cost less than half the Slack costs before any MS enterprise discounts.

If I accept your premise (and I'm not saying that I do), where do you draw the line? I quote:

So can they give it away if they don't use it to kill competition?

What if they CLAIM they aren't?

What if it was only text like IRC? Or only voice?

What if it's something no-one else offers - they have to market it completely independently because they have a successful long lived product with which it integrates well?

Thing is Skype for Business (which was previously Lync 2013 and 2010, Office Communicator 2007 R2 and 2007, and Live Communications Server 2005 and 2003) does text, VoIP, desktop sharing, PSTN integration etc. Has done for years. Teams under the hood seems to be Skype for Business 2020 with a new client though everyone denies it. As far as I can see, Slack just does text, file collab and VoIP, and you need addons for PSTN voice, conferencing etc. Where are the Slack desk phones? The Slack conference phones?

As for Slack itself - the client sucks IMO (as a very seldom user). Click on a conversation to view it and it shows up in barely a fifth of the window. Seemed to be no way to make it bigger for a long, long time. It is as slow as, or slower than Teams (and that's a high bar). Individual chats or channels, no group chats that I see (but I'm not a paying customer, so ... administer appropriate levels of salt).