People will even continue to breathe.

is obvious

It's the Atlantic...

I'm not sure they actually hate that though. From the point of view of credit providers, the reason they can (and do) provide all these incentives to responsible credit card users is that they are making money on these transactions. They want card users who are responsible. From the credit providers' point, the reason they are charging irresponsible users high interests is that this group has a high risk of defaulting. Generally, credit card companies want users to pay of there debt, because they make most of their money on transactions, not from interests.

Contrary to what OP (or the Atlantic) state, the difference is not so much between wealthy and poor users, but between responsible and irresponsible card users. Now, there is a clear correlation of course between being poor and being irresponsible with money, an there are probably groups o people for whom the causality works in either way.

Unfortunately, in many countries it doesn't anymore. As someone with a 2G-only phone, this is becoming a real problem when traveling. I will soon have to replace my still perfectly working phone just because the network is no longer available, which is extremely annoying.

It is somewhat ironic, but certainly not surprising, to celebrate a software package's anniversary by announcing a major push to enshittification. Hopefully there will be a fork that removes these 'functionalities'.

Or turn back any of the other enshitification that has infested he website the last five to ten year? I wouldn't hold my breath.

Corporate pr newspeak is actually meaningless drivel, who would've thought.

...name a more iconic duo. It seems the main question with SoftBank backed ventures is whether they will collapse due to fraud or due to incompetence.

It seems like a major problem with the whole site if a single advertiser can cripple it, apparently without the owner even knowing?

I guess that by 'pollution' it is meant 'CO2' production, although that is not stated in this post. But do oil & gas companies really produce that much CO2? Is it not rather be the power plants, car owners, etc. who produce CO2? The parallel drawn with the Superfund system seems therefore false. For Superfund cleanup, the payment is sought from those who released hazardous substances into the environment, not who produced them (or any precursors, which would be the apt comparison here).

That's because they are not good at anything, except extracting money from venture capital funds.

If it rally was a useful feature, someone will fork the project to keep it alive. /s

I may be a correct prediction, but that would still be a wrong answer to the question *why* to vote for someone.

...I have a bride for sale.