

It doesn’t state anything of the sort in the article. Where did you read that?
It doesn’t state anything of the sort in the article. Where did you read that?
There is none of them, because there is absolutely nothing connecting the former to latter. Since Neowin stated it themselves, the burden of proof lies entirely on them and they literally cannot provide any.
To quote the “article”:
While it’s doubtful you’ll see ads in KDE’s core applications, it would be possible for distributions that wish to further monetize their work to fork these applications, placing ads in them.
Neowin is the web site where their writers can stupidly claim that Qt getting an advertisement module means that KDE will have ads in their apps soon.
Stop linking to them.
It comes from Terry A. Davis’s description of CIA, FBI and the like: “They glow in the dark”
But of course, there is an Emacs command to do that.
Good ol’ C-x M-c M-butterfly!
The absolute disregard of having any moderation is what does that. If there was any, there wouldn’t be the cases like having someone be there by their third account, after the first two got banned.
Not to mention that controversy = angry people and trolls = more clicks = more ad revenue. I don’t think Michael wants to miss out on it.
The “you wouldn’t download a car” statement is made against personal cases of piracy, which got rightfully clowned upon. It obviously doesn’t work at all when you use its ridiculousness to defend big ass corporations that tries to profit from so many of the stuff they “downloaded”.
Besides, it is not “theft”. It is “plagiarism”. And I’m glad to see that people that tries to defend these plagiarism machines that are attempted to be humanised and inflated to something they can never be, gets clowned. It warms my heart.
I too have installed Win11 Pro several times on computers, captain obvious. I know you can do that now.
I am asking that how did you reach to the conclusion that they won’t remove it in later builds from the article itself.