7bit

I use OpenAI. I just am against anti-consumer behaviour

Ah yes, classic max capitalism take

"It will harm consumers"

Ah yes, chosing a name that transports openness and transparency when the opposite is the case, and complaining about not being able to register that name as a trademark, which will cause financial harm the said company -- but somehow there's still people to spin it the other way around so it harms consumers now, therefore it was a bad decision.

That's the definition of anti-consumer behavior

There's more direct channels to report security vulnerabilities - which this about.

It is bad because some commands that are in coreutils are conflicting with cmd commands or Windows binaries?

The only thing bad is that take. It's an optional package. It doesn't overwrite any cmd commands or Windows binaries be default. So the user can decide what to install and what to use. It gives full flexibility.

If you say that's a bad choice, I think you're more commenting on your inability to work with these tools, than the tools itself.

Maybe He means because it diesen have an accepted rfc

Why are you Not using WSL2?

Okay Boomer

Someone desires attention ..

Now that's just speculation

I'm playing Witxhfire right now and the game runs phenomenal.

Arc Raiders runs phebomenal.

The engine is great. If games run terrible it's on the devs. Full stop.

You're right

Ah, that changes thing. That actually makes the joke better.

Honest question: Are you making a joke? Because while it objectively could be one, it doesn't sound like one.

The random ginger dude is the creator of Odin.

It didn't work. The comment wasn't ridiculous. Your reply was. But yes, if you want to flip thing around so you feel validated, be my guest.

That's a childish argument.

Still just anecdotes. Who cares about those

I don't think OP ever expected you to believe anything. He stated his experience and nothing more

Great anecdote. Doesn't validate your claim

How can anyone complain about Ukrainian flags, unless these people have a problem that the Ukraine exists.

Not my responsibility to make sure people with read deficiencies are able to follow a discussion.

I know Math is hard for you, so let me explain it:

10 oranges have a total of roughly 700 calories and 120 grams of sugar while only having 30 grams of fiber. It's mainly sugar. Eating 10 oranges per day crowds out protein, fat and other nutrients.

It's not a made up claim. You are a made up claim, troll.

Your first sent once and your last sentence don't align.

Yes. Fruits are healthy. One orange is healthy. 10 oranges are unhealthy. Same concept applies to water. Drinking too much can be unhealthy as well, but that doesn't change the fact that water is good.

Yet Sharepoint remains slow garbage.

There's a different between being "able to" get an information and "easily have" an information.

Logs still require someone to aggregate them, analyse them and present them in a form that's easily accessible and understadable by managers and also always up to date.

Teams will make all of this available without the company having to spend resources and manpower.

Pyodide and Python have as much in common as you and reading comprehension.

Learn to read

Would you rather the company went under after it ran out of money and had to fire everyone instead?

That's BS.

Google does not get routinely sued.

Yes, Lawyers send takedown requests to Google.

Google sends the reviewer a message and ask for a statement. If you provide one. They will check it and decide whether they seem it defamation or not.

However, Google doesn't verify shit. Even if you send them proof of a purchase or visit and your message is objectively a opinion (not defamation) they will take it down. Why? I assume because they really don't care about individual reviews and rather spare the time and money and just take the comment down.

Google changing their review displays is Google's decision. It has NOTHING to do with any threat of being sued.

They could actually leave the review up when it's not defamatory but they simply don't want to invest the time to validate it or risk leaving a potentially defamatory review online.

And the legal threat is without proof, so why would you even bring it up. OP could have simply posted the letter. They didn't wich makes this completely unprovable

Not my job to proof the wild claim that the layoffs were to save the company from bankruptcy .

Nothing in there suggests that this was done to save the company from bankruptcy, which was the wild claim.