Yes, ethical reviewers do exist. The problem is that you, a consumer of the reviewers' material, don't have enough information to determine which ones those are.

Unlike a Ponzi scheme, the stock market is backed by companies with *actual* potential for growth. P/E ratios might be crazy for some companies, but most investors in the stock market can expect positive returns even if the companies they own don't grow. A Ponzi scheme has nothing backing it, other than money from new "investors." If the new investors stop buying, the scheme collapses. If new investors stop buying stocks, the system remains stable because the current owners retain ownership of money-making businesses.

I needed a backup solution, and I was tired of slinging DVD-ROMs. So I switched to OneDrive and never looked back. I can back up my whole hard drives (1 TB each x 5), for the whole family. Everything is always backed up in an off-site locations, including version history. And Office 365 comes with the deal. I'm happy with that arrangement.

I probably wouldn't buy an Office subscription, but the price for OneDrive is competitive with other backup-only solutions like CrashPlan.

Meh. Real change isn't accomplished by canceling a trip. It's accomplished by introducing fundamental changes to how we get our energy. Switching to solar / wind power, driving EVs, changing how concrete is made. Yes, jet exhaust is a significant component of global warming, about 2.5%. Canceling a handful of flights out of millions annually, isn't proof of doing something meaningful. Changing our overall footprint, is.

They *knew* the market would get ahead of itself, and slow-rolled on purpose. That's what they did, right?

If that were true, the market would *stop* spending on AI. It's not doing that. It's just not spending *more* right now.

No anger here, just common sense.

If you get paid by product manufacturers to review their product, and you air critical reviews, guess what happens to your income? Product sellers don't like bad reviews, so they'll go where they can get good reviews. Influencers know this, and want to keep the money coming, they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. So guess what they'll do...they'll keep the good reviews coming, so they keep the money coming.

This is precisely why Consumer Reports doesn't accept free samples for their reviews. https://www.consumerreports.or...

Indeed. People tend to brush off the disclaimer and believe the influencer anyway. It's like those drug commercials with the soft, droning voice telling you how many ways the drug can kill you, while the video shows pictures of people having fun together, jumping into the water, setting off fireworks, anything to make you not notice that droning voice. *This* is how we should regard reviews that contain these disclaimers. The disclaimer is there to distract us from the pleasing words surrounding the product, attempting to be "honest" while at the same time saying what the advertiser wants you to hear. Those influencers know full well that if they don't say things the advertiser wants them to say, the advertiser money will soon disappear.

Some cosmic rays interfered with my electronic speedometer. It told me I was driving exactly the speed limit. Honest!

Yes, and so is every form of automation.

We software developers have been automating things for decades now. What does all that automation do? Reduce a company's need to pay wages.

And somehow, we're all still employed. Amazing! It's almost as if all this automation creates more jobs in the long run!

That was so...2019. None of the "dollar stores" sell everything for a dollar any more.

How would you know the difference? Because you trust the influencer so much? Sucker!!!

When a review is paid for by the seller, the review is never impartial.

So those teams report to _no one_? Really?

What you're describing is actually a cluster of teams that (in all likelihood) report to a single manager (or director, or whatever).

I don't believe that your teams are truly autonomous.

In the real world, we have to get work done with flawed, imperfect humans. If our expectation is that everyone will always read their emails carefully, we are delusional. Perfection is the enemy of good.

A person who refuses to indulge others' weaknesses, within reason, is someone who will not get far or make friends in the real world. You certainly won't make friends with *me* with that attitude. You, yes you too, have weaknesses, despite your apparent insistence on perfection.

I hear you, but when people send long emails, it's my experience that most people don't read them, and especially they don't read them paying attention to the details.