xor

Well that’s 20th century Europe for you

Why not?

I’ve seen a lot of answers with other good reasons, but I think the main reason has slipped under the radar: the US wants to control the naval routes (via Baffin Bay) between the Atlantic and Pacific through the arctic which are progressively opening up more due to climate change.

Currently Denmark and Canada each control one side of that passage, but changing either to being under US control would effectively allow them to control trade flows through those routes.

It’s somewhat specific to social media, but otherwise is very generic “anything critical of authority” answer imo

Plus, as you say, we have no idea what the actual prompt or response were 🤷

I’m not sure this is actually meaningful - presumably grok doesn’t actually have knowledge of the twitter algorithm itself, so this is just a run of the mill AI make-it-up-on-the-spot response

They don’t do that, because as a service, it continues to cost them money to provide it as time goes on.

That’s not their business model, and acting like it’s equivalent to ransomware for them to not use the business model you’re demanding they switch to is absurd.

If you want to keep your cloud services, pay the subscription cost, it’s that simple.

Okay, I too could afford to pay for your OneDrive subscription, but I’m not going to because - frankly - I don’t care about your cloud storage needs.

The fact they’re technically capable of providing you something for free has nothing to do with whether they are legally or morally obligated to do so.

You’re not the centre of the universe, sorry.

The fact that all of those services have costs - so what you’re effectively saying is that the companies should pay for these things for you whenever you demand it

If they promised you X service for a certain period of time when they purchased something, then you have a right to that service for that period of time. But if they didn’t do that, it just happens that the same company sells that service as a separate product to what you bought, then of course you don’t have a right to it.

If you’re asking whether the rules for services you’ve paid for are different to the rules for services you haven’t paid for then yes, absolutely.

If someone is providing a service at no cost, they have no obligation to continue that service, because you have not provided them anything in exchange for anything.

“I want” is not a valid legal argument for having a right to something.

No, because that’s not what tips are for? But if you don’t pay for the groceries, then yeah, they should be allowed to not give you the groceries, because that’s how buying things works

But if you specifically agree to pay someone a certain amount of money to load your groceries in advance, then refuse to pay them, it’s totally valid for them to not load your groceries, because you didn’t pay for the service you bought

Jesus Christ on a bike

Sure, but you put them there, without taking backups, and then stopped paying them to keep them

I mean not providing a service because you stopped paying the cost you agreed to for the service is quite different from forcibly destroying random people’s data if they don’t give you as much money as you demand

It’s not like they remotely connect to your pc and wipe your hard drive if you don’t pay up

Putin and Xi will have to have a cute little wedding first 🥰

If Xi gets his diplo rep nice and high it might be quicker to just inherit Russia on his death though

Shit uhhhh

And the US will bring back that program where they used pigeons to guide missiles

Drone warfare will be the primary form of warfare (ie automation will continue to become more prevalent), Haiti will still be in crisis, China and the US will still be competing for military dominance, China will still have a disproportionate amount of rare earth metals (that one isn’t even a trend really, just describing geography), and states will continue to call terrorists freedom fighters whenever their goals align.

So, basically, the same trends that have been ongoing since the cold war will continue to be trends, Nostrasmartass.

Well, the HTS leader explicitly told them not to do so, but there’s not much that can be done to enforce that

Worst. Coup d’etat. Ever.

They never even mentioned Israel, you just decided that was their stance so you could call them a hypocrite

That’s a very reductive description of the orange revolution and euromaidan, though.

In both cases, the US didn’t come in and overthrow the Ukrainian government, there was no assassination, no military coup. At a stretch the most you could reasonably argue the US was involved was egging them on.

It was just an enormous number of Ukrainians protesting the abuse of their political system.

The first time, because the president ordered the kidnapping of a journalist ON VIDEO (whose body was then found, decapitated) then attempted to rig the election in favour of his successor - this resulted in massive protests until the election was re-run (this time with international observers) at the demand of their own supreme court.

The latter because the president ran on a platform of EU alignment, then immediately betrayed the people who elected him by doing the exact opposite in order to placate Russia. He was then removed by parliament, who had a legal right to do exactly that.

Note how, both times, the government was removed, not by a couple, but by the legitimate political institutions of the country.

deleted by creator