From what I can tell, the message was that there was a final date to submit claims to be reimbursed, giving dealers the opportunity to stop offering the incentive and shore up any outstanding claims for exactly that reason.
They just didn’t expect dealers to be backlogging months worth of these claims for no apparent reason.
Prove it.
That’s nice. Just exposing your dishonesty. Move along.
I’ll say this.
When I weigh the choice of handing over my personal videos to a company that is explicitly and actively going to use them to:
Or
Putting a NAS at a friends house, or paying a couple bucks a month for some block storage.
I end up preferring the second set of options. It’s fine if you don’t, but don’t pretend you have no idea that your personal videos and information are valuable to Google.
Because, frankly, I don’t think you’re being honest.
Do you really not know how Google’s business model works, or are you playing dumb?
Is money is the only thing about yourself that you ascribe value to?
Nope. The admin of sh.itjust.works lets you use their storage for free. Google does not.
There are things that are free, Youtube is not one of them.
What other platform can I use as cloud storage for video files for free?
None. YouTube included.
You can sue for anything.
In addition to the education you got below, Trump wants to apply a 20% tarrif across the board.
Not even remotely the same as keeping existing ones.
Don’t “both sides” this issue.
Okay, but what’s wrong with putting it on the desk?
Pretty much only ones that use an invasive, kernel-level anticheat. I don’t want that on my system regardless.
It’s not a dumb point so much as just naive – and its the lesson we learned from the xz backdoor.
Sure the source code is out there for anyone to see, but are the right people actually looking?
There’s nothing wrong with what you’re saying, I’m not challenging the point you’re making here.
I’m challenging your ability to mind-read and ascribe that point to a different commenter.
You say they didn’t, and then go on to make a point they didn’t make…
They didn’t comment on funding whatsoever. Plenty of open-source software gets funding, and not all closed source software gets funding.
The issue is with bullying and burnout. Nothing to do with being closed or open source.
Weird that they would say something totally different from what they mean…
in many cases can be less secure than closed source as it’s just one or two people doing it for free.
Absurd take. How could having the source closed possibly enhance the security?
To be clear, they were written from the perspective of a gay man, with their interactions modelled after his experiences, but they are not canonically “gay” (they have no sexual orientation).