That indemnity clause is only for Team, Enterprise and API users. Do you know what was used here?

Also the commercial version is limited to “…Customer and its personnel, successors, and assigns…”. I am very much not a lawyer and couldn’t find definitions of these in the agreement but I am not sure how transferable this indemnity would be to an open source project.

I reviewed it and it looks like personal Claude Code subscriptions are not covered, so it's riskier than I claimed.

This post reminds me of a 14-year old boy reading the MS-DOS manual to figure out what AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS at his younger brother’s football games.

Yep, check deposit was the last reason I might regularly visit a bank (although even before the iPhone, I would use the ATM for that)

If you are truly incapable of even imagining the objections (that you might disagree with!) you should probably get out of your bubble and expand the content you consume.

This is great! I have been meaning to implement this sort of thing in my existing Shortcuts flow but I see you already support it in Shortcuts! Thank you for this!

Anywhere I can toss a Tip for this free app?

I'm glad you like it. :)

There’s also plenty of room for it which is why it continues to appear on all MacBooks.

It’s as if there are a bunch of different people out there.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Goomba_fallacy

“Google denied wrongdoing but settled to avoid the risk, cost and uncertainty of litigation, court papers show.”

I keep seeing folks float this as some admission of wrongdoing but it is not.

The payout was not pennies and this case had been around since 2019, surviving multiple dismissal attempts.

While not an "admission of wrongdoing," it points to some non-zero merit in the plaintiff's case.

Google makes over $1bn/day. $68mm is literally an hour's worth of revenue to them - so yes pennies.

Revenue != Making

And I'm delighted to be surrounded by ultra high net worth individuals here on HN where $68 million is "pennies."

No corporate body ever admits wrongdoing and that's part of the problem. Even when a company loses its appeals, it's virtually unheard of for them to apologize, usually you just get a mealy mouthed 'we respect the court's decision although it did not go the way we hoped.' Accordingly, I don't give denials of wrongdoing any weight at all. I don't assume random accusations are true, but even when they are corporations and their officers/spokespersons are incentivized to lie.

>I keep seeing folks float this as some admission of wrongdoing but it is not.

It absolutely is.

If they knew without a doubt their equipment (that they produce) doesn't eavesdrop, then why would they be concerned about "risk [...] and uncertainty of litigation"?

It is not. The belief that it does is just a comforting delusion people believe to avoid reality. Large companies often forgo fighting cases that will result in a Pyrrhic victory.

Also people already believe google (and every other company) eavesdrops on them, going to trail and winning the case people would not change that.

That doesn't answer my question. By their own statement they are concerned about the risks and uncertainty of litigation.

Again: If their products did not eavesdrop, precisely what risks and uncertainty are they afraid of?

I'm giving parent benefit of the doubt, but I'm chuckling at the following scenarios:

(1) Alphabet admits wrongdoing, but gets an innocent verdict

(2) Alphabet receives a verdict of wrongdoing, but denies it

and the parent using either to claim lack of

> some admission of wrongdoing

The court's designed to settle disputes more than render verdicts.

> I keep seeing folks float this as some admission of wrongdoing but it is not.

The money is the admission of guilt in modern parlance.

Copilot in the streets, Claude in the sheets.

I understand that language evolves and meanings change but we need a word that means “literally”! If we let this one go, the battle is lost.