explain

ONLY "for purposes of providing the services to you."

> You hereby grant to Vultr a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, fully paid-up, worldwide license (including the right to sublicense through multiple tiers) to use, reproduce, process, adapt, publicly perform, publicly display, modify, prepare derivative works, publish, transmit and distribute each of your User Content, or any portion thereof, in any form, medium or distribution method now known or hereafter existing, known or developed, and otherwise use and commercialize the User Content in any way that Vultr deems appropriate, without any further consent, notice and/or compensation to you or to any third parties, *for purposes of providing the services to you.*

Not the same people at all.

Really?

And they brag about it.

Why is this okay?

lmao

Hating so hard.

> “We’re on Apple News now and in the process of enabling monetization there…I suspect that when we turn it on, we’ll be making $20 to $100 per month"

> The four cofounders each own 25% of the company, and at launch each put in $1,000 to cover initial costs. Koebler declined to share current revenue numbers, but said the company is profitable (and that everyone’s been able to pay themselves back the money they initially put in).

Profitable doesn't mean much then.

Context: CEO Yaccarino said she supports the Kids Online Safety Act.

They do, but the nameserver pairs aren't unique and there aren't that many combinations (2500, apparently).

It would be easy enough to automate the creation of accounts until you have an account for every nameserver pair, then start serving on unclaimed domains.

If you set the nameservers but didn't claim the domain in Cloudflare, then anyone else could claim it and start serving on it. The only real verification that you own the domain is that the nameservers are pointed to Cloudflare.

So they raised $670K (https://blog.kagi.com/safe-round) and spent almost $223K of that on printing dog t-shirts to give away?

> Apple’s biggest critics are big mad

State of journalism.

Not allowed

Same with users fleeing all the scary free speech on Twitter, by joining... censorship-resistant alternatives.

> The report, Inequality Inc., finds that seven out of 10 of the world’s biggest corporations have a billionaire as CEO or principal shareholder

That is inherent. You cannot be a principal shareholder of a top 10 corporation without being a billionaire.

Make a homeless dude the principal shareholder of a top 10 corporation and he is instantly a(n evil) billionaire.

Paying for bandwidth is crazy.

The person who believes in no conspiracy theories is the most gullible of all. They believe everything that "authority" tells them, and questions nothing.

The person who believes in a huge amount of conspiracy theories is gullible, but at least is picking and choosing, and not blindly listening to what they are told.

The person who believes in some conspiracy theories and not others is sane, because a lot of former conspiracy theories are now accepted fact.

And I will try to broker a deal to acquire "apple.com" for just $65.00. HMU.

This push for everyone to have their own empty social network site (not distinguishable from 1 billion other sites on the same code) is very strange.

"Developers don’t have to hide pricing, either, so they can take up space to tell you how much money you’ll save if you buy in-app coins through their means versus through Google’s. This could clog up text space in an app already teeming with advertising."

How much did Google pay for this article?

"An LLC is a pass-through company, so if the company is registered with you, you will be taxed on everything you have in the LLC."

Correct by default.

You can elect for the LLC to be taxed as a C Corp (form 8832), and this way the LLC will not be a pass-through entity.

You're seeing what you want to see.

I think if you are hanging around forums about depression, then you almost want to remain depressed.

Fantastic news.

*marking them as junk

Seems likely that this is in some way related to their rebrand to tuta.com.

> so then he can say "see? I love Jews, please big ad dollars, come back"

He may be playing nice to bring the ads back, sure (and no doubt he wants X generating a lot of revenue). But in your example what he's not doing is taking away anyone's freedom of speech in order to get the ad dollars back. He is trying to bring back the ads without eroding freedom of speech.

If what he does is start banning users who say anti-Semitic things to bring back the ad revenue, then you will be right.

"being unable to close his big mouth and engage brain."

He has values, and he values those over money.

You'll notice he has not banned them from X.

Free speech does not come without taking legal responsibility for that speech.

> Play by their rules

Which they are.