GreyEyedGhost

It's true you will never get rid of all of it but, just like crime, basic enforcement is a deterrence. They know who's buying, they know where they're shipped, they have a fair idea if they're returned. Just requiring reviews to be from purchasers after they've received the product, removing positive reviews for returns without replacement (or flagging them as returned), and a few other steps would make fake reviews either very expensive or very expensive for the results.

The fact is, Amazon makes most of their money on AWS, and I don't think they care to put in the real effort to make their marketplace trustworthy again. Without that, it will continue its downward spiral.

You specifically said you chose the MIT license because you wanted to use it in commercial projects. That's business, no matter how small. As the owner of the property, you could have used any and all licenses available to you. Also, if you wanted to require users of your code to attribute or notify you, you could have. If you want to be disappointed in their behavior that's perfectly fine, too. Corporations usually disappoint if you have any altruistic expectations of them.

Won't keep fake reviews off their platform. It's not a matter of ability, but of will.

Here's the core issue. The developer didn't know his rights, and made a mistake. I'm not criticizing, people make a career dealing with crap like this. But if you want to make a business out of something, it's worth it to do some research or talk to a lawyer. I believe the MIT license has its place but, from what the OP said, this isn't it.

It's sort of a flawed opinion. If you're never charging at home and doing a lot of driving, a hybrid won't make much difference and might cost more. If you're conscientious about charging when you can and mostly drive within range of your battery's capacity, it can be almost as effective as full electric. Stats indicate most PHEV owners use the the same way you would use an ICE, car, which is more expensive and a bit of a waste.

Even the RPi, which has major Linux support has a blob for its graphics driver (at least the last time I checked). And I wouldn't exactly say Broadcom is falling over themselves to support Linux. Qualcomm, less so.

I'm perfectly aware of how it works. My whole comment was a proposed way to manage it that doesn't assume that everyone who uses outlook wants to use MS's cloud service just because they also happen to use Outlook. I'm not sure how you missed that.

As for emphasis, "Press fucking backspace!" has a whole lot of it. I certainly would consider that, and not your hypothetical, as actively aggressive.

If you wish to talk about critical thinking, look at your own statements with respect to mine. Not once did I say cancel thenlink attachment, but this thing I didn't say sure got you upset. Moreover, I wasn't writing a formal specification. I'm sorry your assuming the worst and least likely meaning of what I thought was a pretty simple statement triggered you so badly.

Then, instead of two problems, we have seven more specific problems.

Yeah, it sure does sound like it would be hard to have a notification if the attachment is going to fail due to size policies, and then have an option to use the link or cancel the attachment (and have you choose another way). It would also be unheard of for there to be a setting in that dialog to say to always do whatever action you take so it only inconveniences those who go with the default once.

User-hostile software is never a "you" problem. This applies to a number of FOSS products, as well.

Esperanto isn't the only constructed language, and I think it is more Western-oriented, for good or ill. It does do a lot of things right within that framework, though, with certain rules that make everything explicit while removing other rules for structure that are no longer needed due to the explicit nature of the language.

Yeah, they had a drive train, and no real path forward. Even with piles of cash, it took years to get something that resembled a finished product.