> Because the taxpayers bail them out. I could define anything as not being risky if I knew taxpayers would bail it out.

I feel like I must be misunderstanding something here because it sounds like you're saying depositing funds in a bank is considered risky behaviour?

It is supposed to be if the amounts are above $250,000. I have no problem with the first $250k being risk free, that is a policy that is well published and that we all "agree" on. Making arbitrary policy decisions that in some cases depositors should be made whole when risky behavior (such as depositing above the insurance limit) bites them is problematic. Stick to the policy or change the policy don't make one off exceptions because that sets weird expectations.

89% of deposits at SVB were uninsured.

I’m sure you would feel differently if it was your employers money there and they weren’t able to pay your salary.

$250k is not much at all for a business

Businesses can use deposit management services to spread cash among many banks. Bonus points they also are less impacted by the poor business practices of one bank.

Individuals can do this too with investment brokers or wealth management providers.

Alternatively we could just made FDIC coverage unlimited, but then that creates poor risk taking incentives, which is the whole point of not setting the expectation of the a bailout by making exceptions.

> depositing funds in a bank is considered risky behaviour?

of course it is, that's why the bank pays you interest on your deposit. They loan out what you deposit at a higher rate and collect the difference as profit. If that loan defaults then your money is gone because the bank was never able to collect it back. FDIC was invented to insure your deposit up to 250k so you're protected (up to 250k) in case that happens.

No, the bank pays you interest on your deposit to entice you to deposit money there so they can lend it out. There is literally zero risk involved (other than something on the scale of the collapse of the US government, which no one is really considering here) because of the FDIC, and yet interest rates on FDIC protected assets are not 0%.

The vast majority of products with paying customers need better availability than “database went down on Friday and I was AFK until Monday, sorry for the 3 day downtime everyone”

Local first stuff can also break, so that's not a foolproof plan.

Did the sisters know where you lived? Curious if the police provided them with an area and the sisters were able to give a proper address?

Why is it so hard to believe that the police can use our devices to backtrack us, as both carriers and police officers have said numerous times?

Occams razor

says that police can locate phones

To be honest I thought OP said they lived in an apartment; a house is a different story.

Yes that’s how jobs work; you go to work, do your job, try not to get fired, and get paid for the work you do.

Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

Switching models is too easy and the models are turning into commodities. They want to own your dev environment, which they can ultimately charge more when compared to access to their model.

They’re afraid their customers will switch model provider in the future, so instead they made them switch now.

They want to be the next JetBrains.

Parent isn’t insinuating otherwise. They’re saying the subscription model is more lucrative, so eventually they’ll remove the one time payment option, but keeping it as an option for the announcement keeps the bad PR at bay.

How so?

where's the proof of the claim? for one the privacy policy contradicts.

“Worse” is fully dependant on what you’re looking to get out of a product. I consider anything Google/Meta to be about as bad as it gets because I disagree with their business practices and value my privacy.

So that definition does not cover "privacy"? Where does one look up the definition of "worse" you're referring to?

Their level of “polish” extends to dangerous, unreliable levels of automation.

For anything enterprise related, I would avoid Google and their automated account bans without the possibility of contacting a human tech-support agent like the plague.

You pay for a SaaS solution to remove worries to your day-to-day, not to add more things to worry about.

ah yes, the polish that keeps begging you to give them your address for your "own safety"

the polish that can't even delete your entire spam folder half the time

the polish that asks you to verify you own your own email address via email if you want to add an alias to send an email from your own domain (e.g: if you have wildcard inbox and want to reply from one of the addresses you used)

the same polish that gives you no results if you search "one" and the email actually contains "oneword" - you know, search, the thing google is known for.

such amazing polish.

It’s far from impossible, you just have to prioritize your privacy at more than a few bucks a month.

Nothing would make parent happier, but they've placed a very small price on their happiness.

I think this is a very privileged statement when looking at affordability of many countries. For example 40 euros a month is out of reach for much of Albania.

If it was just privacy it would be an easy sell but there is nothing close to a fully functional alternative then Microsoft.

Or in this case have a look at the Google Graveyard and/or those many stories of users that lost access to their Google account without any way to contact an actual person that could help them.

There's certainly a lot more JS code out there to train on, but the quality of the Elixir code is likely overall much better.