It's a disassembly video. And spot welding is a bummer, but not insurmountable. On the other hand, if they have changed the plastic enough, that might well be a deal breaker.
I read your link and it seems to be a privacy setting
What reason is there that Google should be forced to carry your app in their store? I'm sympathetic to the argument that there's many tons of crap on there already, so what's one more unknown quantity, but they are extremely friendly to third party app stores that users want to install. Sideloading is easy to enable, easy to do, and permits you to load an apk from any source you like. Once a store is installed and imbued with the relevant permissions, it can do all of the same things the Play Store can do except perhaps for upgrading Play Services; it can check for updates, it can install updates silently...
There are expensive Android phones, that some people for some reason apparently pay a lot of money for. Weird when the sweet spot is only a couple to a few hundred bucks.
Do they really call the non-cubic toys cubes?
They're assholes all day but TBF they are threatening to not do business in the country, which is the remedy you suggest...
The most interesting thing they're giving away here is a design for a 3d printable feature that fits the cutting head well. Users get to riff off of that.
I know, I mean where will I ever find a battery like this?
I make the argument because I understand the law in the US (from which my reference point is - perhaps Swedish customers would have different recourse for example) and prioritize that over emotion.
Now of course we don't know from the linked article what the arrangement was between the entities involved in the sale or even where the sale occurred (which could affect what law is applied).
For example, when a company goes bankrupt and is liquidated in the US, the trademarks are sometimes sold - but that in no way obligates the purchaser of those trademarks to provide warranty service on products the bankrupt company had commitments to provide (the customers can queue up with the other creditors for compensation based on loss of such service options). However the acquiring company certainly can provide such warranty service if they choose to (perhaps to protect the value of the trademark they just purchased).
they acquired the customers and continued accepting payment and providing the service under the same public trade name
It sounds like they were weren't billing or receiving payment ("consideration") from the "lifetime" subscribers so no "consideration".
It's not uncommon for a trademark to be sold and the acquiring company does not assume liability for the actions of the original company. This sometimes happens in bankruptcy in particular.
It's true that laws are different in different countries. I was speaking from the standpoint of the US. If they continued to demand payment from a "non-lifetime" subscriber, that subscriber and VPNSecure may have a contract. However presumably "lifetime" subscribers were not paying or being asked to (until now) so I suspect the courts in the US would not consider consider those subscribers as having formed a contract with VPNSecure as there was no consideration demanded or provided.
In the US anyone can also send a cease-and-desist letter (or a birthday card) to anyone they want. Of course the recipient can ignore it - then the sender may choose to file a lawsuit against the recipient for whatever grievance they have.
You can get flower of sulfur from horticulture supply, they use it for pest control in a sulfur burner.
You forgot about PPC accelerators. Do you even Amiga, bro?
Up until 2018, Intel was the king in the CPU arena as well, but then, all those security issues became known about. Now, Intel is seen as garbage by the majority of those who pay attention to the industry. Microsoft had to come up with a way to dump those old Intel chips from being supported.
The computer is to the information industry roughly what the central power station is to the electrical industry. -- Peter Drucker
