greggoB
This is essentially what I wrote in the "reason for leaving" comment box when I cancelled my annual subscription. I'm sure many others have/will as well; I'm less sure Proton will course-correct before it's too late.
In addition to that, it possibly highlights a worry about where Proton's priorities are - as a paying customer of a secure email service, should I be concerned that that part of them business is increasingly paying second-fiddle?
If you really believe otherwise I encourage you to go have a chat with any one of a number of FOSS maintainers to hear their experiences pre and post LLMs.
To use your analogy: let's rather not get too complacent about figuring out the world isn't flat and risk placing all future bets on it being round.
I'm commenting on what I see as a consistent pattern of behaviour. An observation that is only increasingly apparent with every one of these (frankly) unhinged responses. To wit: I observe that you lambaste MicroG before, and here in response you double-down with even harsher rhetoric.
Graphene is highly regarded on the technical merits, with a notable uptick in stories on HN to this effect of late - why would you constantly and unrelentingly sully that like this?
Please do not respond with a list of grievances, re MicroG (or others) - I'd genuinely like a specific response to my very unambiguous and direct question.
> What's toxic about responding to people attacking GrapheneOS?
You're making my point for me. Which, to be clear, I find sad because I want GrapheneOS to succeed, but that's really hindered by this behaviour.
The main thrust of the article (as I understood it) is historical context and how human processes can change given circumstance. So basically: demographic decline will be happening and well-understood until these circumstances no longer persist.
The sad thing about GOS is that, despite whatever technical merits it may actually claim, the sheer toxicity of its community is enough to drive many interested users as far away as possible.
Case in point: this very comment by "grapheneos" predictably lambasting MicroG in great detail and then - without a hint of irony - giving GOS props for doing things the "right" way.
Your message would go so much further if for once you considered how it is being conveyed.
Edit: just came across several other essays-as-a-comment in this thread, further vindicating the sentiment.
This just sounda oxymoronic. Overall, hard to know if this comment is intended as satire.
A BIG chunk of these are captured users working at Big Corp™.
I work at a company of 100k+ employees. The enterprise-managed Window machines we're issued are unbelievably bad. But I'm 100% sure if Microsoft pulled a Darth Vader "I'm altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further" and 10x'd the price, nothing would change. Maybe at 100x (or the point of actual unaffordability).
Also bonus points for the mascot :)
> True, communication could be better.
Nitpick, but bit of a contradiction.
> I could see finance looking at it from a cost perspective if it was API costs, but sharing it with the rest of the users feels like a different measurement...
It is indeed surreal. I am not bullish about this company's technological capabilities going forward tbh.
Must be nice. At Sony we use Copilot (as an MS enterprise customer) and restrictions to token usage circa June have resulted in a hunger games of who-can-use-them-all-first, with the pool usually drying up by the 10th day of each month.
As for usage breakdown: we got a manually-published table most days just showing per-user token usage, until eventually we were told even that was somehow too difficult to provide.
Between that and learning how much the whole of Sony Corporate Group spends on Copilot (spoiler: it's hilariously little), I've sort of run out of disbelief.
At some point I think these sorts of analogies break down, as the setup becomes too foreign to what we're more concretely used to.
In this case: there is no pen or paper which can store what you write on a replicated set of servers across the world, with an accompanying ToS telling you how that will be treated/used.
Although I have little sympathy for this women (both her intent and stupidity), I do agree this is a dangerous thing.
The wording here seems problematic. Why is law enforcement entitled to this degree of access to public surveillance as their "property"? That word strongly implies it is theirs to do with as they wish - I don't see how that would be a desirable state of affairs.
Yes you can - if the citizenry says no and mobilises/votes to that end, the cameras can be physically removed, whether in a city/state/nationally.
This isn't an instance of "the cat's out the bag, it can't be opt back in" - accepting that is a form of defeatism IMO.
Defos swiping this analogy for future use
Unless you're suggesting the language design should also be vibed together?
And it would be one thing if you were doing this in a thread discussing geopolitics, but this one is about satellite evidence showing the total destruction of a city. And your response is to boost the state that caused this?