Step away from hardware constraints for a moment, and consider the OS:
If the OS says a file is deleted, under no circumstances should the OS be able to recover it. Sure, certain tools may exist to pull it back; but it should be unavailable to the OS after that. And yet, apparently a software update was enough to recover these files. Thus, the concerns about data safety in an environment where the OS cannot be trusted to remove data when it says it has been removed.
It's a fun idea to play with... but I feel like making that idea canon undercuts a lot of the optimism that's foundational to the series.
I'd be happy with just the silver spoon, myself.
For a Supers game, I've been wanting to play a dragon - just start the game with a chunk of the downtown business district for my hoard, run it with enlightened self-interest (high wages, free healthcare, etc), and go after any supervillains that might threaten my modern "hoard" (which might include the people!)
The idea is that he'd be trying to transition himself from an avatar of fear and flame into something humanity might celebrate, or even venerate - after all, he's seen that humanity tends to wipe out things that terrify it!
Straight to victim blaming?
I do think some of this is just fatigue. The usual way to deal with this is to either pick one or a few things to try to actively address, or just buckle down and wait for things to improve. Both lead naturally to a situation where it's hard to get a critical mass of people to respond on any one subject.
The agreement that was a pop-up you could only accept?
My dog answered that before I got a look at it. Is that legally binding?
But... there's animals!
Often you can still find out what it does, but the “why” gets lost and because of that people are afraid to change it.
I feel like this is what gets lost whenever documentation is talked about. Yes, you should probably be able to work out what something does by looking carefully at it - but why can be so easily lost!
This isn't hate for the investors, but for what they've pushed for. Discord was already profitable, this is just driving enshittification; per the article.
I would rather say it’s “predictable”, rather than “understandable”. Perhaps even, “no better than we can expect”. Calling this “understandable” tends to normalize greed for greed’s sake.
Is that a situation where you can write up your analysis, report the number as correct... and start getting cited in place of the paper with broken attributions?