Probably, but the stink will linger for quite a long time.
There's a burger place near my house that I use to go to almost every week. But then the quality started going down, and I stopped going there. That was two years ago. Maybe they fixed the problems, but I'm not going to know - because I no longer go there. Snap is like that.
They are similar in terms of features. Both have decent interfaces, puzzles, matchmaking, live viewing boards and broadcasts for tournaments, training programs, etc. But chess.com has ads, and features locked behind subscription paywalls where lichess.org does not. (Everything is free on lichess, except for the little logo next to a user's name to say they have supported the site with donations.)
But on the other hand, chess.com seems to have a higher number pro players; and probably a larger number of players overall.
I think its very interesting to think about why that is the case. Why would more people choose the version that is more expensive, but does not have more features?
I've thought of a few reasons, but I think probably the biggest effect is that chess.com has more money to splash around (because it sells ads, and asks for user subscriptions), and it uses big chunk of this money to advertise itself. eg. by sponsoring players and streamers, offering larger prizes for its own tournaments; etc.
And although I definitely think lichess is better, since it is generously supplying a high-quality product without trying to self-enrich, I do sometimes think maybe what chess.com is doing is ok too: in the sense that it is not only self-enriching, but also supporting the sport itself a bit by paying money to players, events, and commentators. Lichess does this too - but less of it, because they have less money.
(Note that chess.com also does some really crappy stuff, such as censoring any mention of lichess in the chat of their twitch broadcasts. That definitely does not help support the sport.)
I'd try this, but I don't know what address to email them at. All of the support / contact instructions are a labyrinth of automated systems, with the fallback option of using the 'community forum'. Google doesn't seem to want anyone to contact them for any reason.
I thought that too at first, which is why I tried every other available option first. But that theory is disproven by the fact that the first attempt with the number told me that the given number was not registered to the account (and so I still couldn't log in). Clearly they were comparing the entered number to something they already had.
Sure. I agree that's the problem; and none of these analogies really help make that any easier to understanding. Certainly they don't have a "murder as much as you like" policy! (I find that analogies are rarely useful - except for manipulating how you want people to feel.)
Perhaps murder is a bit extreme. It's more like "we've noticed you're taking woodchips from the playground. That's not allowed. We wouldn't mind if you were just taking a few chips, but you've taken 2 tons."
[edit]
But putting analogies aside, the service really should make rules and restrictions like this clear in advance. That seems like the real failing here, rather than the rule itself.
There are at least a couple of distros that are based on Ubuntu. Mint is a popular example. I'd say that based on Ubuntu means it is also a Debian derivative.
Blocking means that you don't have to devote your time and thoughts to that person. That's pretty valuable.
And even if they decide they are going to attack you, not-responding is often a good strategy vs that kind of crap anyway - to avoid getting pulled into an endless bad-faith argument. (I'd still suggest not announcing that you've blocked them though. Just block and forget about it.)
Every tech can be safe and unsafe? I think you've oversimplified to the point of meaninglessness. Obviously some technologies are safer than others, and some are more useful than others, and some have overwhelming negative effects. Different tech can and should be discussed and considered on a case by case basis - not just some "every tech is good and bad" nonsense.
I was going to post something a bit like this too. I think perhaps a lot of people on lemmy are on board with this idea, but if I talked like that around family, work colleges, or even friends - I think I'd get a lot of pushback.
Mozilla's recent blog posts explicitly highlight that they are investing in ads for short-term revenue growth. So when they go on to remove the ToS statement about not selling user data, that suggests to me that their strategy is in fact to collect and sell user data.
Perhaps they aren't doing that yet, but signs are pointing in that direction. So that does make me reluctant to share any data with them.
I don't think it is reasonable to expect every individual to become a privacy / legal expert. I think people should have reasonable protections and assurances given to them without needing to study the details of everything they do on a case-by-case basis.
We have laws about what food can and cannot be sold - so that individuals don't have to personally test and monitor every product for safety. Privacy & data could be done like that too.
It's like Moore's law. The number of bytes for a basic app doubles every 2.5 years.
When I was young, we'd get a few different games games on a single 1.4 Mb floppy disk. The games were simpler, sure, but exactly the same games now would be far bigger in bytes.
It has already been renamed to Microsoft365.