> a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it
There is nothing reasonable about turning an existing system that was never designed to keep chats at all, to do on a whim, where would cause irreparable damage to the common offering both internally and externally.
Once is a pass, but 24 hours is not nearly an established window that a medium can/should be made arbitrarily compliant. It would be a large precedent.
I don’t believe them to be the same. I have friends who repeat words to me GPT style, that I know them to be imprecise in the spirit of the discussion.
> Your comment is a lot better (and more information dense) than the submission article. Can we change the URL to just point to your comment instead?
No it’s not. It’s unclear why some of the points are relevant to Binance’s health.
Edit: @rippercushions they are factually correct, but there is no context. With context, the points make even less sense.
Edit 2: @rippercushions Sorry then it’s not on your comment, just the parent’s proposal that it stands alone better than the speculation offered in the article.
> Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.