Laurel Raven

According to the FSF, it’s only free if you tell people what they can do with it, but only very specific things

Obligatory xkcd

And they let you turn it off

Name checks out

I’m not sure exactly what it is you’re going after here, the issue is reducing the number of ICE vehicles being produced and sold. Unless your argument is that most people will just go elsewhere, then I don’t see how it isn’t a net win (ignoring the glaring issue that EVs are still cars)

If you’re complaining about the inequity of laws, that’s a real issue, but this isn’t a good example to go after.

They should put this on their product page as an endorsement, I know it convinced me to try some

I always say “if you aren’t making me sign a waiver, I can handle it”

Then I had a place make me sign a waiver

I’ve had hotter… But not much…

I need to find this Grandma, this sounds like a fight I’d be happy to lose

I always did think it was a bit tame, like a slightly spicy catsup, so that makes sense… Would like to try the full heat version now

Absolutely

They implied the worker on the other end of the line would be the next one to suffer grevious bodily harm or death.

Not really.

The call center rep likely gets daily death threats working that hellish job, ones far more direct. Ones that didn’t get the person arrested.

She implied someone at the top was going to be targeted. You know, someone the company actually cares about.

Not to mention, how many threats do those workers get in the average day? I’m betting it’s a number north of zero, and a lot more clearly threatening, and just as recorded.

I have no idea the stats on this but from everyone I’ve known who’s worked call centers for things way less critical than whether the caller gets live saving care or not, I would be shocked if they don’t get daily threats, and I’m betting none of them are taken seriously or charged.

What’s the difference? Who the threat is directed at. The rest are directed at the poor reps who are probably just trying to survive in a soul crushing job, while this references killing someone actually “important”: the people in charge

Sounded more like a prediction to me

I’m still not convinced he actually did, that any of those things they found on him weren’t planted, or that he was even the shooter at all

So much of this just does not add up…I don’t know that it’s anything other than what they’ve presented but it’s got enough oddities to throw it all into question, and it has since the first face reveal of someone wearing completely different clothes and backpack from the shooter, and all the very convenient evidence that he supposedly was still carrying around with him and the handwritten “manifesto” that read like someone trying to sound smart rather than someone who’s actually well read and educated

Oh, the financial losses that can be directly linked back to Louis DeJoy’s actions while in charge to actively sabotage the service, the same DeJoy that Trump appointed to sabotage the service?

They murdered it so they could sell it off, don’t let them claim otherwise

Yeah, the frequency of bullshit problems and just having to accept losing features and gaining advertisements has reached a point of absolute absurdity, it almost feels intentional at this point like they’re trying to see how far they can push people before they’ll leave

I mean, unless it’s defined elsewhere, it’s leaving an awful lot of space to interpret “obscenity”…

Yeah, and not to mention tonally discordant, I couldn’t get a sense of a single writing voice or style. It bounces between looks-like-maybe-formal to completely informal and back in the span of a sentence or two.

Now, it being handwritten and if he wrote it in a hurry, maybe that could account for it, not really any time or ability to proofread, but I have my doubts.

I’m not positive but I think it may have been TV news, but it does make sense and explains the confusion if true

Last I heard it was a customer who let the employees know and an employee who made the call, so if that’s true, both, kind of