They did what most "lean startups" did. They made an MVP, and iterated from there. The only difference is that their target audience were gamers who hivemind way more than most other markets.
A lean startup, done right, plans the MVP and promises only that, as a first iteration. Then, if necessary, they can pivot in a new direction with another MVP v2, or use the credibility from the execution of their first, viable, release, to raise support for a major expansion or three.
Clearly they did not create a “minimum viable” product if their customers were so unhappy with the end result. As a startup, they failed completely at determining what that “minimum viable” was.
The way I see it is that if Firefox's userbase dwindles because of this, either we get our Firefox with opt-out telemetry or... Firefox dies. And now we have a Chrome monopoly.
So 100 years ago, a guy kidnapping your daughter (just an example of anything that could only be resolved by you knowing where you daughter was) isn't a serious worry, since that's a 0.01% risk as opposed to the 2% risk your daughter gets sick with whatever and dies.
Now, it's that same 0.01% risk compared to a 0.00003% risk thanks to advancements in modern medicine, so we worry about it much more.
If they're frustrated with Sublime with practical reasons (i.e. performance, plugins, extensibility), I don't think Code or Atom would satisfy them any better. You could make the argument for vim or emacs there, but those have been around much longer than Sublime, I doubt Sublime's eating much into those users in the first place.
If they're frustrated with Sublime due to not being FOSS, nothing I guess. But again, those people would have largely switched over already.
If you have a patent against Facebook, let's face it, that patent claim is going to be bigger than React ever can be. The cost of switching out a JS framework would be well worth the benefits of taking a legitimate patent claim on FB.
I can get 50-100++Mbps from Comcast, or 1Mbps (maybe) from CenturyLink, and then... no actually that's it. And 1Mbps would not let me do a lot of stuff online anymore.
So effectively I have no choice, unless I want to stop all video watching, downloading games regularly (not gonna soak 18 hours of 100% of my bandwidth to download a new title), etc.
"A man was arrested for walking." and "A man was arrested for walking and aiming a rifle at a woman." are clearly different actions.
A lawyer went to prison, for illegal statements she made, in court, in defense of her client. These illegal statements that would be illegal even outside the context of being a federal court lawyer.
I can't understand this fetish of generalizing to the point of total vagueness. Case-by-case analysis is just as important now as ever.
Oh it was ILLEGAL. Why didn't you say so? That makes it totally palatable that a lawyer might be imprisoned for doing his job, and doesn't AT ALL impeach the entire concept of a "trial."
> would be illegal even outside the context of being a federal court lawyer.
You have it backwards, friend. The inside of a courtroom needs MORE protections for speech, not fewer, than the outside. Laws like libel simply don't apply there (disclaimer: in the US. Can't speak for how they do it in failed states like Germany), and for very good reason.
Let's put the issue of Nazi speech being illegal in Germany aside for a moment.
If my lawyer yelled "Heil Hitler" and claimed the judge in my case should be murdered, while ostensibly defending me, I'd want them at the very least disbarred and wouldn't mind a bit of jail time.
BTW, I highly doubt a judge exhibiting this behavior in the USA would keep their law license, and they'd probably end up slapped with a contempt charge as well.
> The inside of a courtroom needs MORE protections for speech, not fewer
Perhaps for the defendant. But actually, in every country -- including the USA -- lawyers have extremely strong and often vague constraints on their speech.
And even then, what you're saying just isn't true, even in the USA. There are far more constraints on your speech during a trial than in the public square. Judges in the USA have extremely wide latitude in determining what can and cannot be said, how those things should be said, etc. Those are constraints that judges can enforce in their courtroom but cannot enforce in the public square.
Also, FWIW, knowingly committing libel during a trial is probably a bad idea. Even in the USA.
> disclaimer: in the US. Can't speak for how they do it in failed states like Germany
Well, if you consider Germany a failed state then I'm not really sure what to say. They have their problems, but then so does the USA. No place is perfect.
E.g., using your metric, the USA has THREE TIMES more rape than Germany. So if you put your identity politics aside for a second and look at the data, you come to a far different conclusion.
Also, IMO German citizens have a lot more practically useful freedoms than US citizens, even speech-related freedoms. "Don't be a Nazi" is something the Germans are pretty serious about, but they're a lot more lax about a lot of other speech that is de facto prohibited in many parts of the US. Eg, I seriously doubt Damore would've lost his job in Germany. And the Germans I talk to claim it'd be unambiguously illegal. And cultural self-censorship matters as well -- I'm much more comfortable discussing Christianity in Bavaria than in Alabama.
Germany draws their lines differently from the USA, but we're talking more about delineations at the fuzzy edges than actual differences in kind.
So again, if Germany is a failed state, I'm not really sure what a non-failed state looks like. At this point it's kind of hard for me to take you seriously.
>> what you're saying just isn't true. There are far more constraints on your speech during a trial than in the public square.
Which, OBVIOUSLY, is responding to:
> The inside of a courtroom needs MORE protections for speech, not fewer, than the outside.
and NOT responding to:
> Laws like libel simply don't apply there
The object-level claim is that even with exceptions like that one you link to, speech is MORE LIMITED in court rooms than in the public square everywhere -- including the USA.
And yes, yelling that a judge should be murdered in open court would land a US lawyer in jail.
You're nit-picking (and what's more, nit-picking over a willful misinterpretation of the argument I'm making), not responding to the substantive object-level claim.
> (disclaimer: in the US. Can't speak for how they do it in failed states like Germany)
While neither is much like a failed state, the US right now is a lot closer than Germany (and more clearly heading in the direction of getting closer yet.)
