I don't think anyone can really judge how much this will cost or how frequently it will happen. The cat is kind of out of the bag, though... if malicious actors know they can degrade the site by setting large active subreddits to private, then they have a problem that they can't really anticipate in the future. Most subreddits telegraphed this and so reddit knew well in advance... but maybe next time a cadre of moderators of medium to large sized subreddits decide that they just wanna break reddit today. How does one accurately project something when the revelation of that thing changes the dynamic in a way that makes past data useless for projection? If nothing else, after publicly admitting this problem exists I'd want to fix it so it couldn't be exploited in the future. And if they don't care about serving their real customers' advertisements then they really must just wanna cash out and put the burning garbage in someone else's dumpster.

I mean, we are relying on your everyday user to determine what "legitimate" emails are in this case... What a user calls legitimate in an anymous survey and what a company and their IT department calls legitimate are not in harmony here. I guarantee that at least half and probably more of that 87% who are worried about how much of their data is online are also clicking those "sign in with google" buttons while signed in with their work account. Also, im not really bothered that users are worried about Generative AI making phishing harder to spot... you still gotta look at links before you click them, and generative AI won't hide that the reply-to address is not your firend or business contact. Generative AI can't yet do the actually tangible stuff that IT folk and mindful users use to distinguish a phishing attempt. There may be some changes that make the content in the body more likely to elicit a click, but it doesn't really change the world of phishing that much in my eyes.

Using 3 consecutive letters of your username, first name, or last name are often prohibited by password policies at organizations that actually care about security. Using part of your username as part of your password is a terrible idea on all fronts.

This still doesn't resolve the conflicting statements... so which is it? Are the record companies taking so much of their earnings that they can't make a profit on music, or is Apple making them artificially inflate their prices when you can't even buy Spotify's product on iOS? The answer is that it's all lip service, this is a CEO trying to maximize earnings and maybe trying to garner some good will in the process without, you know, doing something for consumers at all.

Apple isn't taking 30% of every subscription though, they only get that cut from subscriptions through the iOS app. I started my subscription on the web and don't use Apple products. Yeah, I know that the music industry is dysfunctional and broken, and everyone but the middlemen get fleeced. You're not going to get any argument from me on that point. I'd like to see just how much actual money Apple's cut of Spotify's iOS subscriptions actually amounts to. Currently, the iOS app won't let you upgrade to Premium and even laments that it sucks on your behalf. So it sounds like Spotify is complaining about a solved problem. I dunno, I still don't really get any consumer advocacy vibes off this... just more "I'd like the government to legislate higher profits for my app".

I was a paying Spotify customer who left when I got sick of scrolling past a host of content I wasn't interested in to get my music. Spotify tried to coerce, cajole, and then bully people into consuming podcasts to help subsidize their bottom line. It's not my fault that Spotify can't be profitable (enough?) on music streaming alone. So I guess I'm confused. Does Apple's app store fee actually cause Spotify to artificially inflate their prices? If so, why was it necessary to ruin my paid experience to improve their bottom line? I certainly don't feel like they have my best interests at heart.

Didn't people get crazy high electric bills during peak demand when they had that really bad storm a while ago? This seems like the worst possible kind of volatility for bitcoin miners... gets too cold or too hot one day and your utilities suddenly add a couple extra 0s to your bill.

Nobody said anything about stopping people from communicating. The issue is the psychological manipulation that is baked into social media apps. That algorithm that drives engagement and feeds people content that they consume whether it's bad or good for them that's at issue. If you fill a teenage girls' feed with crap that undermines their self image, then it's not communication that's the problem. Manipulating people into staying engaged is not good for society, it's good for social media companies.

"Judge in Epic Suit"... the implication is that the judge's outfit is Epic.

Yeah I know that "paying MSRP" is a pipe dream. Such an unrealistic expectation. Totally not possible to ever again get a video card without paying a scalper. You're a joke. The whole point of my post was that "If Intel does try to change the market it would be a good thing for the market". The point of your post seems to be "Nobody will ever sell you a video card for MSRP again so if you can't figure out how Intel can fix the market, then you'll just have to buy from a scalper, LOL."