← Back to context

Comment by handoflixue

2 hours ago

> Actively handicapping a product that's otherwise capable qualifies.

But they're not actively handicapping it. They're saying it would be wildly irresponsible to assume it's "otherwise capable".

And very critically: they have taken zero steps to "actively handicap" it in any way.

Wanting veto power in execution is functionally the same as actively handicapping it, regardless of how implemented.