That is utter stupidity.

What that proposes is to hold someone, anyone, guilty by default, with no proof.

Unless a lot as changed, they do care.

Every single laptop and any prebuilt computer I find in the market comes pre installed with a Windows.

A good friend approached me to install a Linux on a brand new machine and just to make sure we called the customer support line, informing there was interest to return the windows license, as the software would not be used.

The reply we got was that by removing the software the warranty of the equipment would be null and void. The option was to ship the computer to their maintenance provider and have it removed, with costs presented at end for labour.

I really didn’t want to but their comment just reeks of it my guy.

Except that you did want to. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have done.

Unless by “doing this shit here as well”, you’re referring to the act of not reading the article, jumping to conclusions, and spreading fear and disinformation.

In order to be as fair as possible, I went back and read the comment again.

Is it inflammatory and excessive, while putting out an outlook of distrust towards a new technology? It can be understood as such. Yet, to a degree, I respect and understand that opinion.

Spurting out “okay boomer” doesn’t dismantle that comment; it’s a personal attack.

Either add to the conversation on just keep your peace. Makes the world a better place.

Are we doing this shit here as well?

Your reply adds zero value to the thread.

If you want to make a point, try full paragraphs to express arguments.

Why can’t I state that some place is a hell hole where no one should be stuck but, nonetheless, state the people living there - or at least a good majority - are actually good people?

Considering the stain politics is for the majority of places nowadays, with the growing effort for extremists/conservatives/right wingers/religious zealots trying to roll back civilizational conquests attained in least 50 to 80 years, it’s not hard to infer that a very small group can and will make life terrible for those unaligned with their views.

So, where is the contradiction?

The dog loved his bath but also loved to get everybody pissed off. It was a very stupid game of catch the dog played.

For the time, it wasn’t cheap.

In 2008, here, the minimum wage was €426, so about €2,42 an hour. So €100 for 4 hours of work was a very good pay.

I knew a person that had a Samoyed for which a simple bath was a two person, 4 hour endeavour, from start to finish, not including the initial chase and wrestle to get the dog in the bathtub.

The person had the groomers go to their house, where he had the bathtub already setup in the garage and all necessary towels and other assorted equipment.

The part of actually gettting the dog in the bathtub involved three person, with the dog’s guardian starting to chase the dog around the property from early in the morning, as the dog would do his best to hide, run and stay out of reach of human hands when the bathtub was set on the garage.

The grooming session would be anything between €80 to €100, in 2008, and still the person thought it was cheap.

You can dislike a place and have nothing against people living it.

Considering the mentioned locations are, boiled down, hell holes run mostly by angry white men, I’d risk the living conditions in those places is due to systemic racism and other outdated views on what a society should be.

People living in those those areas are victims and most probably poverty blocked to even consider to leave, regardless of melanin skin levels, although in the US being a shade over milk white is a detriment for having peaceful life.

Stating those places are a bad choice to live is not racism: is stating a fact.

Prices for food in a restaurant is not that hard to calculate: you figure the cost of one plate of food, multiply it by four and that is price to be charged before taxation.

One part is for the pantry. One part is for the kitchen staff. One part is for the room staff. One part is for the house.

Not hard to figure.

Drinks and beverages are basically all profit, unless you want to drink water with a refined meal (the healthiest/best option but most people won’t), so you will pay for a soft drink twice or triple what it costs you at the store and lets not start talking about wines, beers or, even worse, spirits.

Contrary to your expectations, I’m very open to have a dialogue.

Please, elaborate your point.

Contrary to your expectations, I’m very open to have a dialogue.

Please, elaborate your point.

What ever you may be trying to convey it’s completely lost on me, as I don’t have the faintest idea of what that is or means.

Just plain stupidity. Did not bother to look it up in the dictionary and fumble it.

Wherever you work, are you so powerful there that you can refuse to follow intructions or operational guidelines? Are you so financially secure you can just quit your job and leave if you are aware the company is involved in unethical practices? Don’t you those who depend or rely on you for security in their lives?

If so, congratularions.

But many, if not most, don’t have that power and security. They need to work in order to live and take care of others.

Going back to the tweeter/musk debacle: how many were purged from the company or left it for dissent, how many stayed, even though they knew the company was going to engage in behaviours and practices completely contrary to its history and how many have really signed up for the new boss’s “vision”?

Crude analogy but valid enough.

If the company was to be dissolved as punitive action, as you suggest, where would those who stayed because they had to find jobs, considering they would be condemned by association?

Wait, let me try to answer that on your behalf: it would be necessary to lead proper investigations, to determine who was voluntarily, willingly, involved and those who were stuck with no other option.

Or are you perhaps suggesting that no matter what, the moment you complied, regardless your personal agreement, you are as guilty as those who made the initial decision that turned the company on its head?

This isn’t a black and white world. Please stop to consider these downfall of your decisions onto others.

Could you be so kind and explain how would you ensure those who would be losing their livelyhoods survive? And their families?

We tend to peg a face to a company and demonize the whole from one person, like the tweeter debacle and that hair enhanced loon that bought it out of a whim, motivated by spite.

How many have lost their jobs already and how many more would lose them if the company was to be dissolved for punishment in their spread of false information (thus, aiding and abetting) that have led to the terrible losses and even worst for many?

Or perhaps Facebook, with their assistance with covering and gagging the genocide in Myanmar?

This doesn’t mean I disagree with severely punishing these entities. Fine them in millions and billions, force them to break into competing entities, severely regulate and control their actions. But kill a company because, and in this particular case for BMW, they could cooperate or cease to exist, perhaps in horrendous ways?

That would make the punishment as bad or worst than the crime.

Okay, so I am from a country where we got rid of a fascist government less than 50 years ago, thus ending 4 decades of dictatorship. The memory of those days are still quite fresh in our collective memory, regardless the new right wing zealots going to far lenghts to retell a very well and publicly documented history.

And that history is an history of repression, social stagnation and political persecussion. And denunciation.

KGB, the famous KGB, created a reputation for repression by brutality but here it was impossible to tell who you could trust. Your neighbour, your loved ones, that person you encountered every day on the bus, your coworkers… besides the very easy to spot and identify agents that could at random approach you on the street, question and drag you off to the nearest police station or detention center, with no expected time to return home, if ever.

It took, technically a military coup, an inside job, to take this repressive regime. Luckily, it was never their intention to instate a military junta and democracy was instead established.

People could either support, tolerate or endure the regime. There was no other options. Thousands conspired for decades and died in the process. The slightest suspicion and any one could end behind bars, deported to one of the colonies, where prison conditions were even worse, as if such thing could be possible or simply gone, occasionally dragged out of their house, in the middle of the night, in a very loud and public exibition of force for everyone to see and never to comment but by whispers.

That is how fascism, and by extension, any dictatorship enforces complacency.

Not many are willing to become heroes and even less survive to tell the tale. The notion that when dark times arise a great hero will come is an hollywood creation.

You mean like Nike in Bangladesh, but without the wire fences and just through the use of police enforced and government backed brutality, when the workers tried to rally for better work conditions?

I’d risk, with a good degree of comfort, that the negotiations would have been more along the lines of “serve your country and be paid for it or don’t serve your country and go to a concentration camp and die a miserable death”, the last part as subtext.

You do not negotiate with any sort of dictatorial regime. The regime holds all the cards, including the cards the other players think they have in hand.

BMW and, by extension, any company, be it small or large, cooperating with any regime is understandable. It’s that or risk a terrible, more or less public, demise. That is why dictatorial regimes go to great lenghts to ensure companies and business owners favor by putting large quantities of money and/or resources in their hands.

Self preservation is easy to turn into greed.

That’s devious.

Heerily similar, isn’t it?