I'm waiting for that to go away before I consider the jump. I figure there'll be enough people sick of that behaviour it'll get sorted.

Is this just a form of changing one subscription for another?

I agree with their "two parties interacting is a relationship". Hell, I have a "relationship" at the checkout as they scan my groceries. But it's not deep or long lasting, so as you'd expect either party makes near zero effort.

Secondly, they never said that every relationship requires perfect honesty in all things. I'm not volunteering to my checkout person that I will eat that party bag size chips in one sitting. They don't need to know and it's highly likely they don't care. I'll be gone out of their life in a minute.

However, your entire relationship with your employer is roughly based on "benefits for work". It is a recurring interaction, probably over a significant length of time. So it seems reasonable to be honest about how you work to avoid making the relationship toxic from the start.

But then I also agree with "Do whatever it takes to survive." and if toxic relationships mean you keep breathing, well it sucks but there it is.

I am fortunate to not be in that "survival" position so honesty works for me.

I guess end users can not upgrade but a definition of obsolete would be nice.

To me, every HP printer ever is obsolete. But I assume someone else has an equally valid and different opinion. How does that go with computer hardware?

The definition of "earn" is not on the chopping block. Nor is what it means to "cheat" - which he introduces pretty early on.

And times change. With the announcement: "[Insert name] is a billionaire!"

It used to be: "Congrats to them for making the world better in some way and reaping the rewards."

Now it is: "What did they leverage to force another subscription on us?"

IE when you get a load of firewood for the winter, you want it to be hardwood. The person you buy the wood from may mix in softwood depending on their trustworthiness...

Why prefer hardwood? Hardwood density means it will burn for ages. So you have to mess with the fire less and it'll still have at least hot coals in the morning if you put a log on before bed.

"John! Why can't you be more like your brother?!"

comes from.

Nothing ever breaks. - "What are we paying you for?"

Management can choose their burden.

But the realities of the idea - the engineering - is problematic.

The ocean is a harsh environment and maintaining something deliberately put out of the way in a harsher environment is far more expensive.

Because the prompt is the quintessence of intent regarding the information to be conveyed.

I want to see F1 car design be about function/performance above all. I want to see awesome gadgets using insanely clever design. Then ideally that design should influence built items in the rest of the world.

F1 used to be influential in creating and developing high technology. Now it seems to be about gathering high technology from elsewhere so as to meet the insane regulations most efficiently.

But am now in the quadlock system of attaching my phone to anything else.... IE car mounts too. SO quadlock got a bunch of my money.

Maybe I'm a buyer trying to justify my sunk costs, but to Quadlock's credit, once all matched, I think it works well.

And for the 3D printerists, there is a bunch of Quadlock 3D models to help out too.

Here are some projections to support that statement. Supposedly 2084 is peak population.

https://population.gov.au/sites/population.gov.au/files/2025...

I haven't read up on all the assumptions made for those projections. If something unassumed pops up that makes things substantially worse then the population peak would come earlier I guess. But that's a gamble.

In theory that is covered already by laws against physical violence in whatever form they take.

> freedom from employment consequences

This crosses the line into private actions and property. Unless you mean government employees maybe? I don't think you will find many private employers who'd support the idea they'd have to keep employees no matter what they say, privately or publicly as that could lead to significant harm of the business reputation.

You've already got libel, perjury, obscenity, harassment limitations on "free speech". Just accept that it is not perfectly free and the reasons why are generally(feel free to pounce on the exceptions) for societal cohesion.

merriam-webster definition: "the return for the use of a factor in excess of the minimum required to bring forth its service" [0]

Think of those companies that have % take on the output of others by providing a market. Yes, they provide a service, as you say "The rich will sell you things they created".

But the arrangement allows them to extract more than it costs. That extra over and above doesn't provide extra value. It is "rent".

To be clear, at no point have I accused billionaires of illegal acts. Mind you at that scale they can influence what is legal or not, regulated or not, tariffed or not. Example, see Apple's award to Trump for tariff exemptions.

Their acts impact the economy and how money flows.

The accusation being a large chunk of their wealth is via rent than wealth creation that benefits everyone.

Now, to a business person, this is simply good business! Maximising profit on output! But from a society wide economic point of view, there can be too much of a good thing.

Sentiment-wise, the poor and middleclass want to be able to get rich too. But now it seems as though the multibillionaires will make that impossible as they seek to suck up every last dollar.

[0]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/economic%20rent

Edit: flow and shorter... and then added more sorry.

The rich extracting wealth from the poor doesn't create.

Investors buying existing housing stock doesn't create.

Mine it. Make it. Improve it. Brings wealth into existence.

Note that financially large businesses/individuals are a mix of wealth creation and transference.

That one word comment implies a lot of the wealthiest people have not created much wealth in comparison with how much they managed to transfer.