Disagree. Even with their issues, they're still less evil than MS, Apple and especially Oracle or Meta.

If they didn't have all their issues (discontinuing products, bad customer service) they'd probably be bigger than MS and Apple combined. But here we are.

Also for better or worse, I pay for bundled Google storage + Gemini and YouTube separately, it's still worth it, even without free months or whatever. And still better than being in MS or Apple's ecosystem.

> it's still worth it, even without free months or whatever

Until you go of the rails of their processes and have your account closed with no recourse.

Sometimes I worry about this but everytime I see an example of it I feel better (because most examples involve the person doing weird things).

> most examples involve the person doing weird things

That doesn't make any sense. There are still plenty of people who are not doing weird things and getting screwed over.

Google fanboys have always fallen for their "don't be evil" nonsense, and it looks like they still are even after it was changed.

The least evil giant might be Yahoo!, although nowadays no one uses their service due to their inability product and tech.

This has been said many times over years and even decades, but here goes again: Microsoft doesn't care about users, open source, nothing except their own pocketbooks.

Is there a billion dollar company that does?

The only one I can think of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagonia,_Inc.

I know the link is weird, wiki seem to have an issue with their name.

I think that's because there is a period at the end

Here is the link with the comma and the period html encoded

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagonia%2C_Inc%2E

Some at least recognize that being pro-consumer is better long term.

Most non-US countries only award money for actual damages, not punitive charges.

It's also assumed that people have at least a little common sense and that your average adult knows more than a toddler.

Tons of people did and do this to get higher resolution on a certain streaming site.

> individual contributers have copyright on the code, and potentially even trademark

They're not the original authors of Rubygems so it's doubtful they have anything more than copyright on the code they contributed.

IIRC the original authors of rubygems are also the original founders of RubyCentral (chad fowler, david a. black, rich kilmer, jim weirich?), so probably the line was blurrier back then.

This is just the way MS is and always has been. It was inevitable. It's part of their longstanding EEE strategy. Anyone who thought otherwise was fooling themselves.

Embrace, Extend, Enshittify?

Gitlab.

Not bad. I picked First code which is acceptable. My fav though is 0xProto, which has ligatures that still maintain separation between the symbols and is otherwise a very nice, legible font.

> What's the actual steel man argument for why noncompetes are good?

It makes it possible to confidently buy a business that's mostly or all goodwill. Otherwise the previous owner can simply poach all the clients.

Also lots of jurisdictions allow non-competes as long as the employee is paid for the duration of the non-compete clause. Obvious win there: paid vacation or double up your salary by working for a non-competing firm.

Non-competes on employees without compensation are obviously bad.

This feels a tad heavy-handed and will make it tougher to sell a business without hard assets.

It should just be banned for employees or require a payout of (previous salary) * (length of non-compete).

On the other hand it's a boon to those establishing new businesses. And a huge boon to employees. And a boon to the overall economy because it accelerates transfer of know-how out of older and more dysfunctional companies into newer and more nimble ones. This is what made Silicon Valley what it is, starting all the way back with the Traitorous Eight in 1957 and continuing today.

There are so many wannabe "New Silicon Valley" alternative areas that are unwilling to copy the non-compete ban, and subsequently fail to compete with the real Silicon Valley. It's a necessary ingredient in my opinion.

Why would it affect selling a business?

Previous owner can start the same business immediately and poach all the clients, reducing the value of the sold business to zero. Buyers obviously anticipate this and won't buy the business without the non-compete.

That would violate a non-compete attached to the sale.

...for employees. For business owners there are different rules (IIRC > 1% ownership threshold).

As the years go buy I'm gradually more and more in favor of restrictions to sell businesses. They tend to benefit two groups: the people running a successful business and the people running the even more successful businesses buying them.

They tend not to benefit the employees, the customers, the competitors and really anyone else besides a small number of people who are already very successful.

Not all businesses are wildly successful. Some are just successful enough to provide a single family with a middle class income. For some people, selling that is their only hope of retirement.

It's not like the seller never has an option to say no to the non-compete.

Then nobody creates businesses in your state and everyone there loses. What person in their right mind would invest their time and money into a business they wouldn't be able to sell?

This is quite a stupid idea: you kill all innovative behavior if a creator can't decide to sell his creation.

All voluntary transactions benefits both buyer and seller.

This is as it should be!

And the government exists to safeguard the benefit of the broader public. Not all transactions are legal.