I really hate this anti-skeptic rhetoric that's becoming so popular on HN right now. It's like you can't even be suspicious of something without having evidence of it happening. But if you had evidence, you wouldn't be suspicious in the first place!

What's the point of working your developers to the bone (as Amazon is famous for doing) if the result is going to be this bad?

Why is having a vertical option for the taskbar not on Win11? That sounds like one of the easiest features to port over.

Yeah, I know these types of articles are just kickbacks to the DoD, they'll always exist. It just seems like nobody actually cares anymore, when it used to be that at least a few people cared.

Everyone else only dislikes them because they're the ones being tailored to. Everything is going to become more generalized and bland because it appeals to the most amount of people, and that makes the most amount of money (and the most boring kind of Internet).

Uh, I don't want all of my online social connections being replaced with robots, thanks.

"All of this is stuff you're allowed to do to compete, of course. But we were still a search partner, so we'd say 'hey what gives?' And every time, they'd say, 'oops. That was accidental. We'll fix it in the next push in 2 weeks."

"Over and over. Oops. Another accident. We'll fix it soon. We want the same things. We're on the same team. There were dozens of oopses. Hundreds maybe?"

"I'm all for 'don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence' but I don't believe Google is that incompetent. I think they were running out the clock. We lost users during every oops. And we spent effort and frustration every clock tick on that instead of improving our product. We got outfoxed for a while and by the time we started calling it what it was, a lot of damage had been done,"

When exactly should we shift our framing of an issue from "conspiracy theory" to "actual concern"?

How else am I supposed to interpret this?