Nicksil

>I have seen this posted many times but can anyone elaborate?

Read the article.

Do you still work for Google?

hn@ycombinator.com

>They just got through saying that foul play was not suspected. It'd be nice if you could not slander the dead.

>not suspected

lol, It's all speculation. No one knows anything at this point. Have there been cases in the past where the police initially announce no foul play was suspected and then have it turn out to be that foul play was indeed involved? We can imagine so.

And there is no slander here. None. So what on Earth are you even talking about?

>I think you must be misreading. You brought this up in the first place when you said "Should probably also disclose you work for Google when making such a statement about one of its products.". Before that, I did not say anything about Google, or imply that I worked there, in any way. The thread clearly shows this.

Oh c'mon; are you just trolling now? Of course you didn't say that in this thread, but you did say it lol.

I mean, do you think I just made a wild guess that some random HN user worked for Google and happened to be right?

Right. They asked why I thought they worked at Google and it's because they said they worked at Google.

You asked why I thought you worked at Google and it's because you said as much.

>I don't work at Google. Why do you think I work at Google [...]

>[...] I worked at Google

>The fact that the car was self-driven doesn't really affect any of this

That's a bit ridiculous. Of course it does; how many people do you know are OK with some random dudes making an ass of themselves in the middle of the street, blocking your right-of-way?

Should probably also disclose you work for Google when making such a statement about one of its products.

>Firefox is the third worst browser, unfortunately there are only three browsers and one is restricted to Apple devices.

So, first best? I concur!

>Most artists [...] are working in a commercial capacity.

How do we know this?

>They are making it up

You work for Google, though. Why should your word be trusted over the others'?

Indeed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_altitude

>How do you do wandering mode?

Top-right of window

Mozilla Firefox has put a lot of time into their PDF reader.

https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/browsers/

who's talking about being impressed? You are but that's all I see lol

lmao this has got to be one of the most ignorant comments on hn. Unless you're just shit posting, then meh.

Try Thunderbird

https://www.thunderbird.net

> It just doesn't seem plausible.

Why do you think that? This sort of transformation can come about a number of ways. It’s not an everyday occurrence but it’s certainly not implausible.

You've endarkened us

> 237 Tb in an unlimited service from Google

So, not excessive. 237 TB does not exceed unlimited. What am I missing here?

>they knew they had found a loop hole in google policy.

What, exactly, is this loop hole?

>And he was never paying "a lot of money" for this.

You're being obtuse: "a lot of money" in this context is a relative amount and you know that.

>Life would be miserable if every restaurant had to parcel out individual sugar packets just because 1/100 people decided to abuse it and take them all home.

OK

>Why do you want everything to be financialized?

Where did I say this?

>The world works better when people can use small conveniences non-abusively.

OK

Did you just not want to address anything in the comment you replied to?

>didn't migrate the data to somebody offering a better deal

Why would this be considered? What if he didn't want to migrate 200+ TB of data and just decided to stay where he's at, continuing to pay Google a lot of money?

>expected for it to be retained indefinitely?

For as long as he pays for the service, right?

>Things are free when people don't abuse it. Just be normal. Jesus.

Well, no, things are free until they stop being free.

Who gets to decide what "normal" means.

>The actual text in the story doesn't match the title. It's pretty obvious if you read it.

I did read it. Title is definitely reflective of the articles content.

Did you read it?