The struggle against spam has led to a situation where large companies hold significant control, ostensibly to prevent spam. Yet, despite these measures, the spam issue persists, and the complexity of hosting one's own email server has increased substantially.
Maybe it's time we moved on to a different protocol?
I agree about the cloud having the potential to be a good fit for CI builds, but I don't think it's there yet as there is a time overhead with turning on and off a cloud VM.
Ideally, we would have serverless functions doing this, but most cloud providers limit the run time for those.
Another problem is that a lot of build systems are single threaded, and the chances of finding a server CPU that runs outperforms a 5Ghz home CPU are very low.
I think it's not too late to create a modern open-source alternative to PDF.
I find it unacceptable that something that has become so widely used doesn't have proper free tools for editing.
Society shouldn't be limited by income if they want (have?) to use PDFs, or else suffer from a bad experience.
The other bigger problem with PDF is that a lot of the times it's used for something for which it wasn't made to be used for. Anything that is expected to be consumed on both mobile and desktop devices should never use PDFs. Government forms should not use PDFs with hacky embedded scripts either.
First of all, the sell price is $30k. That doesn't mean that it's trading at that price but just that nobody is selling it for less, or someone is quickly buying the orders that sell for less, assuming there are only a few, to maintain the appearance that it's trading at this price.
Secondly, the reason why most anti coin people want it to fail is because they hate it. And most people that hate it, do it because they lost money because of it.
As in gambling, over 90% of people lose money in this market. The reason why people don't hate gambling that much after they lose money there is because they think gambling is relatively fair. A lot of people that lost money on crypto did it because a 'promise' made to them by the shillers that we all see, was not met. Or even worse, there was an obvious fraud like the many rug pulls that happen, scams, or so called stable coins losing their value, even though they were not supposed to.
There are more reasons to hate cryptocurrency though, like the fact that it's used by a lot of criminals, the fact that gamers can't find reasonably priced video cards anymore and also the effects it has on climate change.
I mentioned in my first comment that he can not prove this, and the Wikipedia link explains why he can't (fundamental law rule). I definitely agree that Google should list the reasons for what they did. Ideally there would be a public mechanism where everyone can see the history of violations associated with a developer account.
I am not picking any side here. I don't know the developer, and I don't know Google. My comment was more on the philosophical side, showing that someone is making a claim that he can not prove. This applies to a lot of stuff that is posted online, and the problem is people just take things for granted, when a lot of them are just some claims by unknown people. Anyway, I don't expect most of the people to understand the nuances, but maybe at least 1 person will open their eyes due to this thread.
I'm not saying that Google was right to do this, but this has to be taken with a grain of salt because we don't really know what the circumstances were.
Can the user prove his claims that he wasn't notified about violations in the past?
No he can't (more info here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#P...). In this case, Google would have to prove that they actually emailed the person, but I doubt they will reply as they might not even be watching this space.
Should we just assume that this person is telling the truth?
Are there reasons why someone would lie about this?
Maybe it's time we moved on to a different protocol?