Behavior "give me now 50K and then monthly 200K" is called Racketeering.
wikipedia > In the United States of America, racketeering is a type of organized crime in which the perpetrators set up a coercive, fraudulent, extortionary, or otherwise illegal coordinated scheme or operation (a "racket") to repeatedly or consistently collect a profit.
Did they offer new service and asked for more? No.
Did they came with new calculation based on costs? No.
They just insist on "more money or your operations are toast".
Once executives and vice- clout get into the court on racketeering, just like al Capone was, things will go much better.
Absolutely hostile. OP was talking to a human, not a company, on an issue they have no personal stake in in a forum that values decorum and engaging with the best interpretation of an argument.
I see accusations and statements, not questions and discovery. Folks seem too busy grabbing their pitchfork to engage in an honest conversation on shitty enterprise sales tactics.
People keep throwing out words like extortion and racketeering but clearly have zero idea what those words mean.
> Did they came with new calculation based on costs? No.
A regular review process flagged an account that it shouldn't have, and it was included in some low-level employees day-to-day. To try and act like this was some malicious planned attempt at extortion is an exhaustively stupid position to argue for, it has no legs other than to satisfy some dark urge.
It's a challenge to get a team of developers to adhere internal processes just affecting one team, imagine how hard it is to manage processes spanning managers, directors, and senior executives when those processes are a decade old.
It's absolutely naive to think the C-level executives of a company with 3,000 people are going to hear about an issue like this within 48 hours of it happening. But sure let's keep coming up with conspiracies to satisfy everyone's desire to virtue signal and show off how much they hate the cruel evil business.
While his leaks expose surveillance, he was useful idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot in hands of Assange club. And it might be event of his saving was trigger for Putin to start war. So no, I'd better see whole camaraderie before court and sentenced. Regardless of 'heroism'.
And yes, most of modern supporters of Wikileaks / Assange / Snowden / etc, chanting 'release Assange' and 'pardon Snowden' are useful idiots in hands of tyrannies like BRICS club.
Bad analogy: the previous Afghanistan government was also anti-LGBT, albeit less extremely so - the previous government’s Penal Code, introduced in 2018, criminalises homosexuality and punishes it with imprisonment. When the Taliban took over, they announced that imprisonment is now replaced with death
Yeah, except imagine you registered it in a region where ccp-like government comes in power on a regular basis, and even without them in power, it is not exactly an LGBT-friendly place.
To be clear, I am not trying to say that CCP is in any way similar to Taliban, because it isn’t. Was just trying to demonstrate the lack of foresight happening here using your own hypothetical scenario.
actually Bruce Byfield explains it in Linux Magazine:
Pass is available in the repositories of most major distributions. As usual, you can also compile from scratch, but, if you do, take note of the dependencies, especially GnuPG (GPG) [6], which creates encryption keys, and Password Generator (pwgen) [7], which generates random passwords that contain random combinations of upper- and lowercase letters, numbers, and special characters. Without GnuPG and pwgen, you will be unable to set up Pass, much less actually use it.
Not necessarily, I find it pretty easy to get into routines, waking including. After about a week on a given schedule (assuming its regular) I will generally wake up on my own 5-15 minutes before the alarm.
The only reason to keep secrets is if they aren't free. Otherwise the secret protects nothing. Freedom is broad and self contradictory. Complete freedom for more than one person is impossible.
That's not true. There are any number of subgroups that view certain behavior with distaste that other subgroups do not. Just because there is social and cultural pressure to do or not do things doesn't mean you are unfree. You are just as free to observe the behaviors or not as other people are to judge you by them.
I mean, I don't like tipping. I think it's horrible in many aspects, not the least of which how it taps directly into racial and gender prejudices monetarily (black waiters make less in tips regardless of service level). That said, I tip. I would rather not be known as the guy that doesn't tip (and wages assume tips as of now, so it's a bit unfair to the service people). I'm still free to tip or not, and others are free to judge or misjudge me for it if I do.
(quote) "People in dictatorial regimes didn't get there by being quiet. They never were. Even today in places like Venezuela and Russia people take to the streets. They got there by losing a channel of communication to their fellow citizens." -- you are clearly out of sync with reality about Russia. Since 2011 protests, Russian regime jails people even at "single person protest" which are always legal by their law, leave alone cases like Bolotnaya. NGOs are pushed into fed-by-govt-or-illegal mode. Political opponents either went into govt-is-right mode or expelled. Mind you, it is not dictatorial, it is only authoritarian. But it is toxic enough. And we haven't even started yet about DT going to hug with Putin asap once he is in chair. Did I mention that almost whole Republican party is in love Putin's image and strong arm behavior? Thank you but your ideas are out of sync with reality.
And yet by every measure Putin remains incredibly popular, even when measured by foreign, non-biased organizations. Just as was Hugo Chavez.
So how are my ideas out of sync with reality? The only thing out-of-sync with reality is doubling-down on the same strategies that lost over the past two years of intense political campaigning.
Policies do not make the candidate. Ultimately, voters elect a person, not a set of abstract policies. Policies _should_ make the candidate, and we _should_ endeavor to nurture a culture where policies matter.
But, alas, in the current environment somebody like Trump is thriving. Like Putin, he thrives _despite_ the fact that clear (though distinct) majorities reject almost every one of his concrete policies. (The exception being national defense, where more is always better and voters don't care much about the details.) And he'll likely follow Putin's pattern--openly promise one thing, do something else when nobody is looking, then deflect criticism using traditional propaganda techniques--promises were "just rhetoric", implemented policies are "misconstrued" and "ill-informed", and... look, squirrel!
Given the cult of personality (Trump the star, Trump the vehicle for rejecting the established order), the way to win is diminish support for the personality. You do that not by attacking policies directly, but by attacking policies in such a way that they expose the personality as a fraud. Those are truly two different things. The latter isn't focused on the rightness or wrongness of policy (always a debatable point), but rather in showing that Trump doesn't actually have voters' interests at heart; you show that Trump is a poor vehicle for reform.
Behavior "give me now 50K and then monthly 200K" is called Racketeering.
wikipedia > In the United States of America, racketeering is a type of organized crime in which the perpetrators set up a coercive, fraudulent, extortionary, or otherwise illegal coordinated scheme or operation (a "racket") to repeatedly or consistently collect a profit.
Did they offer new service and asked for more? No.
Did they came with new calculation based on costs? No.
They just insist on "more money or your operations are toast".
Once executives and vice- clout get into the court on racketeering, just like al Capone was, things will go much better.