The iUP was better about giving the choice to just buy it out at the end. This one is more rigid:

>Terminating your Apple Upgrade Lease: Closing your lease and returning your device terminates your lease. You may incur substantial fees if you terminate your lease before the end of your initial lease term. You may have the option to upgrade to a new device by entering into a new lease agreement and returning your prior device. If you upgrade, your new monthly payments may be greater than your prior monthly payments. If you do not upgrade, terminate your lease, or purchase your device by the end of the initial lease term, the lease will convert to a month-to-month lease for up to six months. Your monthly payments may increase during the month-to-month periods. If you take no action at the end of your extension period, you will be charged the purchase fee under your lease. You will not own your device at the end of your lease, unless you pay the purchase fee. Insurance is not included in your lease, and you may incur damage fees if the device is lost, stolen, or not returned in the condition required by the lease.

Partnering with Klarna explains it quite a bit. They make money on penalties. This new plan has all sorts of sticks it will beat you with if you stray off the path, so it's perfect for them.

I am not sure how you could walk away from this comment thread and still think that's the case. Minus this digression which does argue about central concepts, the discussion about the original point is pretty close to the bottom of Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement.

I guess maybe a better question would be why you think pivoting a conversation about how open weight models are changing the industry into a conversation about whether a commenter was rude is a positive outcome? I would understand either ignoring him or answering his content, but I'm trying to understand how getting into back and forth about tone (back in my day we call that a flame war) is a good use of one's time.

>Do understand: Until about a decade ago, I thought like you. It caused me all kinds of headaches in the real world

I've found it to be quite the opposite! Not rankling at someone's emotionally charged language in real life has been incredibly useful, both for interactions with friends and strangers, but also with family. The people I know who are miserable about visiting family at Thanksgiving feel that way because they are unable to stop themselves from getting into conflicts because their relatives made some emotionally charged statement. There are also plenty of situations where people come in hot and angry, and you can turn it around by simply letting their tone slide and trying to help them. Happened all the time when I tutored compsci students. They'd come in angry and surly because they'd been beating their head against a problem or concept, and a little patience and forbearance went a long way towards improving their attitude.

Really doubt that but feel free to give an example.

>If it's OK to address his comment sans the "decel", it should also be OK to address his use of "decel" without discussing the rest of the comment

I think the only acceptable response is to answer his argument if you can read it. If you can't handle a heated commenter and insist on making his anger the discussion, then you'd have been better off not answering it. So just recognize this and ignore.

For convenient definitions of "dangerous"

It's why people can advocate for ethnic cleansing here, and that's fine as long as they word it correctly, but if someone calls them an asshole about it, they're flagged.

Really common in rationalist circles from my experience as well because they believe that true statements aren't always normative, and that, since their arguments are true because they're rational, their statements aren't necessarily normative. Begging the question, of course, but I see that in situations like Scott Alexander's defense of "human biodiversity" theories (the whole HBD moniker is itself an example of everything I'm talking about condensed into two words).

I personally don't think a single founder making that contribution is a strong enough tie to Mullvad to expect it to influence their behavior. I also don't think there's any reason to think that that party's goal will necessarily entail the curbing of digital security products like VPNs.

If anything, I think that Mullvad taking a "it's his business; it's not our role to tell individuals what they can think or do" stance is exactly what I would like a VPN to do. Others disagree.

tl;dr: It still has a great reputation outside of the Blueksy crowd.

1. Torrenting from big open trackers like PirateBay. The main skill here is that you need to be critical of what you download and wrap your traffic up tight in a VPN. Adding at least some info on getting started with Proton's Free VPN service would be valuable, as well as pointers to some that are known to be good for torrenting (for example, Proton has NAT options).

2. Torrenting from private trackers. The main skill here is self control, building ratio, figuring out how to find someone who knows someone who'll send you an invite because the last thing you want to do is wind up on IRC being interviewed by a person for whom audio codec and CD rip validation is their special interest who will use you as a punching bag because of whatever they're mad about in their personal life. One big note here is that they often allow VPN torrent downloads but ban VPN usage on their website.

There are also some places that are a good middle ground. Places like IPTorrents are generally safe enough to download from (with or without VPN in my experience, but Proton Free VPN is so easy and good that why not?) but generous enough with freeleech that you can build ratio if you try.

Seedboxes are also a good topic to cover for both because they alleviate some of the security concerns as well as letting you leave things to seed 24/7 easily.

The real victims will be pen testers, who work a job whose economics was already really tough.

I firmly believe there's no reason to employ the latter group. I have several coworkers like this that I could replace with a Claude session or two every week and I'd still have to push back on work and review a lot, but I'd still wind up saving time because then I'd talk directly to Claude.

So I guess my point is that I dislike AI era code review because for some subset of it, I basically can't even assume a human has ever looked at it, and that by doing so, I'm doing the work for one of my coworkers who is probably doing his grocery shopping at 2PM as I read it.

Who knows what "rewritten" means, but you can sort of see how it progresses.