but I don't feel like these criticisms are warranted. I use it on a much smaller scale but it does what it says on the box. I get the feeling the people interviewed just don't like change. Unfortunately the article doesn't have much beyond the summary to back up any shortcomings.

I just got a friendly email from google to the effect of "we have to let you link externally now so get ready for fees"

Thats how I've been looking at it. If the job is THAT critical 100k shouldn't be a problem. The point of h1b is you can not find the worker here. If you pay more workers will appear and now that gap is a big ol 100k. I keep seeing complaints about "rural medical workers". Trying offering 50k more and see what happens. We cant say h1b doesnt depress wages AND at the same time we cant possibly offer more in wages.

For funzies I just looked too. Settings->prime->dropdown to manage membership->tap manage and there it is. Sure its not one-click but I dont particularly want a big "CANCEL MEMBERSHIP" button front and center every time I open an app. Theres a lot in there and the management area seems placed in a perfectly reasonable location.

The fact is you can get a lot of code written quickly that works 95% of the time. You just have to be very clear with requirements and implement things in small chunks; though I have YOLO'd it on personal projects with decent results a few times. Sure, I could write every from scratch but it would take a while. At work I find something like copilot very handy for summarizing code to see what it thinks it does and seeing where it deviates from my assumptions.

I've been running into this trying to get something set up for a business of mine. Create an account, log in, immediately suspended due to content policy. Tried twice with different emails through my domain. Hit the appeal button and comes back as still violating the content policy. It's a good thing I'm just creating an account "because it's the thing to do" and don't rely on it for my business. Who knows; maybe they prefer no one uses the service?

I hate to do this to you but while it's not technically a cliffhanger... it will be kind of abrupt. I'm firmly in the camp of "well now I wish I never started it".

A product(facebook) costs money. Do you want it? Yes? Then you pay money. Don't want to pay money? Agree to personalized ads so someone else pays money, if you want. How is that not the best choice possible? All I hear is "you are required to provide your product for free".

Exact same boat. I couldn't care less about increased performance at this point. Give me Vram.

If the app is collecting your data then giving it to Amazon you can complain to the app developer or sue them if they claimed they weren't. You can complain that Firebase is collecting data but Google never gave you an option there so they never misrepresented anything.

Look; I don't like Google collecting and selling my data any more than the next guy but "Don't sell my account data" and "As a browser, don't collect my browsing data and sell it" is completely separate from "As an app tool(firebase) that I have sent my data to (by using the third-party app), don't collect my data for the developer". The former(s) was disabled as you requested and the latter is an enabled setting by the app developer. The fact that Google owns both products is irrelevant and they never claimed the setting applied outside its scope. Plaintiffs are either willfully ignorant or hoping they can pull wool over the jury's eyes. An equivalent would be suing Amazon because an app written to use AWS Amplify collected your data after you told Google to not sell your browsing history.

When I warn someone about a risk it is to prevent something in the future. If I need to convince them I reference the past. Companies aren't required to convince anyone of anything; just present what could happen. Who actually expects this to succeed?

It's the moment you know the anti-discrimination lows have gone too far.

Same around Nashville. I almost dont ask anymore when I meet someone new.

Lemme get this straight- Google directed customers to a fake storefront, took and order as a middleman with their 30% cut, passed along the order, and somehow forced the restaurant to accept the order at 70% of their asking price? "Sorry Google you didn't pay asking so you dont get the order" seems like the right response.