malvosenior

> Microsoft, Amazon and Apple also sell ads.

Not as their main or even major business lines.

> AMP may tie publishers into their standard, but as a user I'd much prefer an AMP page to a dog slow publisher page on mobile.

As a user I couldn't disagree more. When I go to a URL I want the content behind that URL. I don't read bloated garbage sites anyway, but even there I'd prefer the real site to the AMP Google-ware.

> iOS has plenty of hidden spy apps, masque attacks, and iCloud backup attacks.

Hidden spy apps? Would love to hear your source on that. None of these compare to the absolutely toxic Android ecosystem.

> Apple, Amazon and Microsoft all routinely deprecate products.

Nothing these companies has done rivals Google here. How many Google chat products have there been?

> Plenty of privacy concerns with Amazon and Microsoft. Remains to be seen if Apple caves on the Pensacola iPhones.

Google's business model is removing privacy.

> Not sure how workplace politics or culture affects the user experience at all, sounds like you might be confusing your own prejudices with users at large.

What prejudices would those be? I didn't even state a position other than they inject politics everywhere, which is undeniable.

> Microsoft censors their products in China, Google does not.

Irrelevant.

> Amazon sells counterfeit products, Google does not.

Amazon sells physical products, Google sells ads.

> Apple refuses to interoperate with industry standards, Google does not.

This is true about Apple but it's also true about Google. RSS anyone? Gmail's embrace/extend/extinguish of email protocols. AMP.

I also think it's funny that my post went from +8 to flagged overnight. How many Google employees does it take to flag a popular post? Only you offered any sort of rebuttal to my statements but obviously many agree.

That's too bad. Out of the other $1T US companies (Apple, Amazon, Microsoft) Google seems by far the most user hostile. I would say Microsoft once held this position but lost their edge to be truly damaging. On the other hand Google:

* Sells ads for a living

* Pushes AMP

* Removes features from Chrome that allow you to block ads

* Android littered with spyware

* Kills products randomly

* Kills platforms randomly (leaving developers high and dry)

* Horrible hiring culture cargo-culted by lesser Googles

* Privacy concerns with Google Home product

* Introduces politics into the workplace

* Introduces politics into their products

* Sexual harassing execs get big payouts

* Infantalized workplace culture

* Produces increasingly awful search results

* More...

I don't know enough about chemistry to say, but does steaming milk (like for a latte) have any effect on its health properties? I ask because for milk based coffee drinks you really want to be using whole milk. There are no taste and texture options that get anywhere near it.

We’re talking about people invited to his island and people he invested in. Not random members of the public.

It’s all in the MIT report. They knew everything about him yet continued to work and socialize with him.

No one made that argument. I said:

> Not everyone who went there is guilty, but given everything we now know it's not unfair to question their presence in Epstein's orbit.

That's it. I'd also argue that 1. doesn't exist because Epstein and his properties highly advertised his lifestyle.

> This is unreasonable, and it makes you kind of dumb.

You're responding to an argument no one has made.

That's just one small example. The other big one is that he had underage girls around him all the time. That makes him a pedophile.

We don't know what Epstein and his backers were after. Maybe Seth Lloyd had influence over someone or some other leverage they wanted. It definitely warrants further investigation though.

Epstein was most likely backed by Israel, so you should ask what they would want with quantum computing.

You're correct about this but sadly getting downvoted. People have a hard time processing that their heroes very likely knew about Epstein's activities and at the very least looked the other way (some definitely participated themselves). Gates, Hawking, Groenig... all have their fans that will defend them to the death.

The evidence is there though for those that care to look. As you say, Epstein couldn't not talk about sex and young women, they were around constantly, everyone knew it was weird or they enjoyed the prospect of it.

Typo