I'm old enough to consider the framing of the question to be weirdly loaded.
It does not feel that long ago where people would be asked to justify entrusting their product's functions and data to a bunch of strangers who can make unilateral decisions about your service with zero comeback. Now we're being asked to justify not doing that.
My LinkedIn has recently become flooded with Suggested Posts from 3rd degree connections who have "Vibe Coding Guru" listed as their job and post lots of stuff saying "people who mock Vibe Coding just don't get it, and you too will be left behind if you don't subscribe to my newsletter (which ChatGPT writes for me)"
Just to put a downer on things, looking at the final results I do worry that Canada may have won the battle but lost the war.
The situation in the US came about because an entrenched two-party system drowns out most viewpoints, and is what allowed Trump to seize control of a party of politicians who almost universally spoke out against him ten years ago. It's also responsible for the Democrats' constant and unrelenting shift towards the Right, enabled by the knowledge that most left-leaning voters are still too cowardly to vote third party.
And what did we see this election? All the smaller party seats drifting to the big two "to stop the wrong guy getting in".
Be very very careful not to continue down this slope. It does not end with the bad guys staying defeated once and for all.
The detail I enjoyed most about this is that he had fewer than 220 followers at the time of the ban. This suggests that in order for any details on this incident to have got out at all, a decent percentage of his fans in 2025 are actually just journalists waiting for him to do something stupid they can get an article out of.
I used a scientific approach in the science memes community.
The issue is that your application of "the scientific approach" is to dismiss the entire field of research up to now, and demand that OP prove their point from first principles. It's not a reasonable response to what they posted.
What we're seeing here is an example of how it's possible to be both right and very wrong at the same time.
You don’t seem to care about actual science.
...and the second issue is that you're now attacking the integrity of the people calling you out on it, for no clear benefit other than to put them down. Go back and read Rule #1.
I've been inside a few big companies and I've seen exactly how it works.
In order to manage huge organisations, they divide them all up into cost centers. And the website is considered marketing so it gets given a budget on the theory that it brings customers. It uses the budget to make games and it does indeed bring customers.
Then a few years later, the shareholders are asking why their stock hasn't outperformed the market, and they put in a CEO tasked with fixing it, and the CEO asks the head of the department in charge of websites what can he do to address the fact that his department is losing money instead of making it.
The horrible cruelty regarding Cambodia is that the reason they have such a high trade deficit is that most Cambodians are too poor to be able to begin to afford anything that America has to offer.
It's one of the poorest countries in Asia, they could cut their tariffs to 0% and the net effect would be less than the measurable rounding error on total American exports.
Trump is going to tank the economy of an already poverty-stricken country and plunge it into exactly the kind of instability that destroyed it once already just because "fuck you, give me more".
I remember they once tried some similar shit with the Kerberos protocol, sneaking a patented feature in there so they could then seize the whole thing in the name of Active Directory, but I think they were forced to back down(?)
I’m actually having difficulty finding details on it now because they’ve done a solid job drowning the story out from the search results...