When you’re above the law, does it matter?

My bad, I started downloading The Lord of the Rings movies - Extended Edition. Sorry!

I didn’t, but it also doesn’t mention water

Someone please edit the Wikipedia page for magnets to add the fact that water cancels them out.

Glad to hear this. Years ago I worked with Obsidian engineers (who may or may not still be there, I have no idea) and I absolutely loved the systems they had built for their games. They were able to create games with a massive amount of content with a relatively small team of engineers, so I’ve always rooted for them.

I liked (didn’t love) and completed the first Outer Worlds but I thoroughly enjoyed Grounded - even though I never played through to the end game. I’ll definitely give this one a go.

I get what you’re saying (and saw your other comment) but I didn’t come away from OP’s write up thinking DHH was only a casual racist. So if they were attempting to defend DHH’s racism they did piss poor job. The language used was soft, but the quotes speak for themselves.

I was actually confused for a minute by your big comment, because I couldn’t figure out who you were saying was defending racists.

The article definitely glossed over the racism though. That might be why OP’s language was soft. They were responding to the article’s accusations - which were almost in passing - and in that context the language kind of matches. By pulling that out of the article and making it prominent in their write up, i think OP made it much more clear and couldn’t possibly be doing it to defend DHH.

Drain the swamp?

I was coming here with the exact same quote with a:

Well, if they subscribed before, why wouldn’t they stay subscribed at the same price with the same features? Why is it a “narrow raft”?

Archive: https://archive.is/iWXqF

Well, naturally he’d die after eating 9 tons of metal.

It’s marketing making them think they want to own that stuff.

Developers rarely control the tools budget; their managers do.

So this whole article is a moot point

Developers detest marketing. If you want to sell them a tool, make it easy for them to find the information they need and leave them alone to try out your tool.

So marketing does work, just not “traditional” or “mainstream” marketing. We’ve had shareware since the beginning times, which was the ultimate try before you buy. Now we have the subscription model (fbow).

Yeah I’d like to think I’m better than marketing, but really, it just takes the right marketing, and I’m putty in their hands.

I haven’t been following Atlassian recently and was wondering if you were just tossing that out there… But no, that is literally their plan:

This deal is a bold step forward in reimagining the browser for knowledge work in the AI era,” Mike Cannon-Brookes, Atlassian’s CEO and co-founder, said in a statement.

“Together, we’ll create an AI-powered browser optimized for the many SaaS applications living in tabs – one that knowledge workers will love to use every day,” he added.

Yes, that’s what I meant with my “for now” and “for the moment”.

Microsoft has already said it doesn’t matter where your data is stored, it isn’t safe from the United States.

But you can change this behaviour in settings, it’s just the default for now.

So, if you don’t trust Microsoft to handle your documents, but still somehow use MS Word and OneDrive, for the moment you can still stop it from saving your Word documents to their servers.

You don’t seem to understand to anything else…

You’re reaching so hard to defend JD Vance I wonder what orifice you use to please him every morning.

Again, unconditional surrender by the military, which was no longer willing to defend its country, is not diplomacy. It is a military act. Unconditional surrender is the result of failed diplomacy, it is failure to negotiate an end to a conflict. It’s not an “agreement,” it is a one-sided act of capitulation.

This isn’t nitpicking, you’re making a huge reach to call it diplomacy. If you can show me any published book, dictionary or document that says that unconditional surrender is an act of diplomacy, I’ll stand corrected. But I’m pretty sure you’ll have a very hard time finding such a thing.

Diplomacy is by definition the management of relations between countries, by representatives of the countries, not between a country and another country’s military. Germany was not under military rule, so the military wasn’t making a decision for the country, and it was not a diplomatic act.

I mean, it’s in the first sentence of what you posted [emphasis mine]

The German Instrument of Surrender[a] was a legal document effecting the unconditional surrender of the remaining German armed forces to the Allies, ending World War II in Europe.

The signatories on the German side were

• Admiral Hans-Georg von Friedeburg
• Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel
• General Hans-Jürgen Stumpff

Notice they’re all military, not government representatives. These signatories represent the German High Command (military), not Germany itself, it says so on the first line of the terms.

Now, read the full instruments of surrender here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Definitive_German_Instrument_of_Surrender_(8_May_1945)

The terms are all about orders to the military and how they will perform the act of surrendering. It is a purely military document. There’s nothing about the country, nothing about the government, nothing diplomatic about it. There is nothing in the terms that say what the Allies will do.

You don’t have to be a politician to do diplomatic actions for your state.

As I hope you can see now, they weren’t performing actions on behalf of the state. They were performing on behalf of the military, and that’s a huge difference.

Imagine if the US military signed terms of surrender, or even gave away equipment to another country, on its own, without Congress or the President issuing an order. That wouldn’t be considered diplomacy, it would be a military act, and if you can’t see the difference, then I guess we’re done here.

And ad hominem attacks are used to distract from the weakness of your own argument, which is what you continue to do.

Okay check yourself with ad hominem attacks, asshole.

Germany’s surrender was a military act, not a diplomatic one. It was signed by generals, not diplomats or politicians. Germany’s surrender was not a negotiated agreement as they were denied any legitimacy to negotiate.