Are literal placeholders. They haven't filled in the minimum information to make these useful:
"These Terms shall be governed by and defined following the laws of __________."
I am _very_ cautious around launches where they haven't got these basics correct. It's one of the first places I go to see if I should trust a new organisation or not.
This headline has annoyed me. macOS Tahoe 26.3 has been working absolutely fine for me, and probably millions of others.
It isn't working for _you_, and you don't know why yet. This isn't yet useful information and doesn't indicate that the entire OS is broken (universally).
> Bom's spokesperson told the BBC it had received about 400,000 items of feedback on the new site, which accounted for less than 1% of the 55 million visits in the past month.
This is a _remarkably_ bad attempt to make the complaints look reduced in comparison to usage. Amazing that any organisation would try this line.
You're right, and thanks for the note - gave me a chance to reflect. I think what I mean is more along the lines that while a right to reply would have been polite, it isn't required of a blogger, and wouldn't change the substance of the post much, which is largely about a pattern of behaviour rather than specifics. Michael's attempts to dismiss/discredit the post based on a process which generally only applies to the press is what sits badly with me.
They enforced ARC without any notice which failed deliverability by about 50% for my catch-all address. I only noticed when someone told me they had emailed and it didn’t come through.
I just don’t trust them now. That was a huge misstep.