No, I just pointed it out to you that it was ironic. You, however, seem to read an attack into it. Which it wasn't. And of course you could immediately fix that if you did feel attacked by fleshing out your profile, which you intend to keep for years anyway so you can productively contribute to the conversation here, right?
Ignore neighboring comment; he likes picking on anons because he's proud of what he writes on this site.
The reason that this is probably somewhat conspiratorial, in the sense of being planned by a clandestine group, is because RT is well-known to be part of Russia's state propaganda machine [0]. Trusting RT either way, without examining their claims and sources carefully, is a bad idea.
RT as a propaganda arm needs viewers to function as kerlin intended. RT was created to offer a kremlin approved perspective. RT would fail that purpose if its reach is limited. This is something we can all agree on, right? Russia want to draw certain audiences, that's a given right?
So how is the neighbouring comment wrong or worth ignoring? Even tho the profit motive may not be there, RT value proposition to the kremlin is the same as vice, buzzfeed, and huffpost except that instead of ads, they seek get the audience to the site to expose to them to the kremlim approved narrative.
> So how is the neighbouring comment wrong or worth ignoring?
Well the neighboring comment raised none of the points you have. The neighboring comment did nothing more than draw attention to the username/karma of the 'jsjddbbwj' user, and insinuated that the user was part of a conspiracy by calling the comment ironic.
And most of them either rely on SSH+rsync, syncthing, or something along those lines - in other words, tools that will sync the files reliably, even on bad links...eventually. Never have I seen a backend that's built for editing...the remote-mount abstraction mostly works, but leaks specifically in these edge cases.
What contract? You don't sign a contract when you create a Google account (which is basically what you need to create an API key with access to the free tier)
These terms[0] are, in general, legally binding (especially as you're a business signing them and not just a person), and it's obvious bad-faith to do this, making any sort of lawsuit hard to fight. While they most likely won't actually take you to court over this, you risk suspension of your main GCP account.
> 3.3 Restrictions.
> Customer will not, and will not allow third parties under its control to: ... (d) create multiple Applications, Accounts, or Projects to simulate or act as a single Application, Account, or Project (respectively) or otherwise access the Services in a manner intended to avoid incurring Fees or exceed usage limits or quotas;
Expect to see more of these as fewer and fewer people use Firefox and web developers simply don't try their websites on this browser. And as more websites stop working correctly on Firefox, they will lose more market share. Some kind of spiral, you know?
I was thinking that a rendering bug (which is what one expects from a browser compatibility bug) is not that bad, but when we are talking privacy and security, now that's a problem.
I assume to show how neglected this has gotten. MacOS Server used to be a lot more popular and a lot more loved.
I understand this isn't a remotely core part of their business, but I don't understand why you would want such a quarter-assed product out there with your name on it.
A small team, which Apple can afford, could keep this a good offering that helps out certain kinds of Mac users.
This seems like a great opportunity for some small team that wants to get acqui-hired by Apple in a few years for a cool billion. I doubt the domain will get much love because it is a niche product that lives and dies on the whims of a mega-corp. But a small startup could probably bootstrap itself to profitability. Worst case is they get a good five-ten years of being your own boss until the market dries completely or Apple finally decides to compete (but not buy your company).
