Hah, yeah I guess he does own goal to protect others often.
That’s an egregious mistake of a logistics employee wrongly asset tagging a prototype, ending up creating a huge controversy. Linus never named the employee and took all the heat on himself even though the situation had nothing to do with him.
Making a big deal out of Honey taking creator’s money would again move all the heat on him while warning other creator’s. But I think it would go just as bad.
So the scenario is that they know Honey is losing them money, but it’s saving user’s money by finding them great deals (since that part of the controversy wasn’t known at the time).
And you are proposing they make a video complaining about it. A big YouTuber millionaire telling people “hey, I know this extension is making you money, but please consider not using it because we are profiting off of our affiliate links less when you do and our profits are more important than your savings”.
How do you think that would go? We all know how such a video would be received.
I am aware
It’s not just creators though, it’s also preventing customers from getting a good deal, because stores can pay honey their protection racket money to stop it from giving their customers discounts.
Admittedly it’s a lesser issue - you are just not getting a discount you could have gotten - but it’s the opposite of what it was claiming to do for you.
Current self-driving cars
So you agree they exist. You are just saying they are not good. Just like the printer that only works sometimes is still a printer that exists, it’s just bad at being one.
But we are just arguing semantics.
They not working in all cases is a qualifier you are adding yourself though. There are definitely existing self-driving cars. There are no self-driving cars that can handle all situations, but being perfect or finished is not a prerequisite for something existing.
I use it for a few years now, it’s very customizable. In my opinion the best Chromium-based browser. I recommend either Vivaldi or Firefox depending on your needs.
Yes, it was really bad.
I question your assertion that it was purposefully done as a secret conspiracy to ruin a random brand. Don’t attribute to malice what can adequately explained by stupidity.
No, they weren’t trying to ruin the brand, they were trying to make a YouTube video, made a bad job with multiple compounding mistakes, and ended up hurting the brand without that being their intention.