...at least we know in the hands of Uncle Sam, it won't be abused.
"...They are known for their resistance to heat, water, and oil,..."
"...they are persistent and don't break down over time..."
Feels like the latter is a completely predictable result of the former.
...but I know a lot of charities that would be delighted and thrive on $4 million a year.
I like how they frame it as some sort of tragedy, when they control their own purse strings.
...but isn't compelling customers to connect to your ecosystem to simply use your product (particularly when this wasn't part of the original terms of service) pretty obviously an anticompetitive violation of their antitrust agreements/evasions?
"at least it's real (leftists) talking about things (leftists) care about"
FTFY.
The only place you might be able to speak your mind for a moment before getting banned without appeal or explanation is r/unpopularopinion and even that is only a brief respite from the compulsory doctrinal lockstep. r/NeutralPolitics isn't bad either.
I mean, to be fair Reddit DOES fully align with Google's goals politically so them regurgitating each other would be on-brand.
Maybe it wasn't such a great idea to literally connect every fucking thing to the internet with tissue paper systems that were known to be blatantly insecure?
No, no, you just go ahead and connect your refrigerator, toaster, coffee machine, and front door lock to the internet for "convenience", safe in the assumption that your government is doing exactly the same thing for critical infrastructure for "reasons" that have more to do with not losing allocated budgets than any actual value.
FOMO and idiots overwhelm what I would say was a reasonable prediction of how informed consumers would behave. The error here was in assuming consumers were faintly aware of their own self-interest and still retained some ability to defer gratification.
The fact is, despite people bitching constantly about not having enough money, too high of rent, and having miserable lives never able to make ends meet, they still cheerfully drop $20/mo to six different subscription services to watch movies on their $1200 phone and buy a $8 latte every morning with a credit card that is nearly maxed out.
Don't blame
Humanity created plenty of beautiful, wonderful things before governments got into the business of protecting the rights of authors and creators.
Creators will still create stuff, I have no doubt.
What I read (between the lines, since the actual lines don't fucking explain):
- they were getting divorced anyway (both the husband and wife have different teams of lawyers)
- someone at the wife's law firm clicked basically "ok let's call this marriage done" in some online portal
- the husbands lawyers didn't see anything wrong with that
- the judge said "okey dokey, you're divorced"
- the wife's lawyers said "wait! No! We want to undo that"
- the judge said basically that the court had followed the procedures it was supposed to, and if the wife was angry, she should file against her law firm
My inference is: very wealthy couple getting a divorce, arguing over how much she should get. Her law firm accidentally said "ok we're satisfied close this case" and his lawyers instantly agree.
So yeah, her law firm is upset because now not only are they not getting a fat % of the overly optimistic alimony they probably claimed they could get for her, they absolutely are legally exposed to get sued for that full amount themselves.
The hilarious result would be if his law firm helps her sue them. Even funnier if he pays for it.
New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman