I've seen hints of this sort of belief before, and I want to understand it, but it seems so incredibly sheltered and naive that I have trouble believing a large number of people actually hold it.

For starters, your implicit assumption seems to be that "MAGA" == downwardly mobile white folks. That's part of the coalition, yes - but the dominant caste is wealthy suburbanites - we used to call them "white flight" voters. Think car dealership owners and dentists. The kind of people who can afford to fuck up boats at "Trump Yacht Rallies".

The second is that somehow condescension and ridicule somehow uniquely attaches to this segment. Hate to break it to you, but that is most people's normal. It is privileged white folks who are learning what it is like to be treated like everyone else, and are reacting to that.

The third weird thing is an utter failure to notice that these condescending "captains of industry" are all MAGA supporters. Trumpistas who think this way are literally cheering their own subjugation. MAGAts are being led around by the fucking nose. It would be hilarious if they weren't taking the rest of us with them.

It's $10 for one person, but take 1 million people, and it's $10 million

Right, that's why this makes sense for Gmail. The spreadsheet says make the free tier extraction percentage number go up, and they value noncomplying users' time at zero. The math should is different for company-internal email.

The operative question should be, how much do you want to spend on employees sorting email instead of writing code or whatever you hired them to do? Because that's how you're buying your disk storage savings.

Different places have different considerations - as I mentioned above, my employer now clearly values reducing litigation risk over my productivity. In the past at startups, my decision was to give folks huge quotas and treat it like any other capacity management problem for scaling/budgeting.

There has to be some limit, and if someone somehow bounces off of it nobody thinks it unreasonable to tell them to fix it. And anyway there's usually a reason like a misconfigured something that infinitely-spams about whatever it is upset about. Otherwise they can worry about work instead of email management make-work.

Should be a knock-off for $500 soon enough.

Of course it'll be a little rough around the edges, and the solar panel won't work, and instead of growls it makes Bart Simpson jokes, but I'm sure it'll be fine.

When I was directly admining systems, I didn't have time to argue with people over a couple dollars worth of storage.

I also didn't want people wasting time worrying about quotas or other artificial limits unless they were abusive. (The dude who wrote something that was authing against LDAP 10s of millions of times a day got a talking-to.)

A lot of people confuse "I can't imagine doing or needing X" with "there is a good reason to deny the ability to do X." Honestly, I think most people are Doing It Wrong, most of the time. So? If they're getting shit done, none of my business until they are making unreasonable demands that impact operations. And 100G of mail is peanuts.

My current complaint is the opposite - I can't keep mail longer than a year now, lest it be discoverable in some potential future lawsuit. I've gotten better at predicting what I'll need to know later, but still miss things I should have saved somewhere, and that absolutely damages my productivity.

What I'm hearing is "But, I'm a highly-compensated professional! Not like all the plebes we spy on constantly to compensate me."

I do agree that they should stand up for themselves, and they have my support, once I'm done supporting causes I consider more important, like toe lint eradication.

Facebook headhunters used to bug me constantly. I put up an autoresponder telling them what I thought of their business model, leadership and general behavior, and that I would wash dishes for a living before working for a degrading, anti-human shithole like FB. Eventually they got the message.

I ended up in a fairly heated argument with some FB employees several years back when I mentioned that. It was obvious they felt stung by someone rejecting the choices they made and kept leaning in to, "but I make more money than you". Which was I was happy to concede, it was true. Suggesting that my self-esteem costs more than theirs didn't seem to be what they wanted to hear..

I wonder if those folks are still there, protesting about their workplace privacy.

That just means our security was good. You little anecdote isn't actual data.

The headline may as well be "Rose maintains transactional relationships with tech media after all these years".

At this point I think if a good idea walked up and smacked him on the head, the name alone might doom it. It has been an also-ran in a confusing number of categories, so depending on your age you may remember it as a very different kind of failure than I do. Sort of the converse of trademark dilution - it is clear what the name is and who owns it, what's muddy is what the service is supposed to be.

"Sounds like they're trying to make a ladies bike"
Wow, that's some 1pth century anti women on bike BS right there.

Ys, for a kid. an adult wants a pretend part because they can't get with the times is pathetic.

Imagine being so insecure you have to pretend to be using an older version of an engine? sad.

JFC, are you still trolling people with nonsense? Two decades? I guess being a person who barley got an AS, then ending up a TV Repair man makes you sad and you just take it out on others with your trolling and rage baiting. It's a really unhealthy way to try and make your self feel like you have value.

Our prosperity literally lifted the world up until about bush. When we started really feeling the impact of reaganomics.

The cost to ship calories of food is cheaper then ever, and that's due Americas investing around the globe.
20th century engineering an science benefitted billions of people. from vaccines, to ag.

So yes, we use to.
Then we stopped tacking properly, then conservative started attacking science, and now we are gutting are own farmers.
Thanks to conservatives.

I see what you did there.
I approve.

yes, but not who they were passed on to.

no, government money is correct.
The government dictates how it's spent, it's government money. Only the dimmest of the dim would think government money does come from a tax pool.
And saying tax payer money is too broad any conversation the requires details because which tax pool it comes from matters.