> we've chosen to highly reward

No, investors have.

This is an important point.

Society did not choose freemium, it did not choose high fructose corn syrup. It was content with the products straight, the way they were.

At minimum increased to what they would be

if driving was a privilege

and not treated as a de facto right,

only withheld as a last-resort due to the curse it can be in the US.

Yes - but complicated by what.

What’s a server?

So not their problem.

Is their problem, but have some grace. You wouldn't be able to handle this insane growth either.

They’re being stuffed into Microsoft’s behemoth, and being taken off-mission by them.

People uploading more code doesn’t necessitate switching to Microsoft Azure backend, and doing other inane things that only benefit Microsoft.

> It does seem like it might, in general, be a very opportune time for GitLab (or another host) to publicly step up!

In what way(s)?

As in, to present themselves as the new defacto git host, capitalizing on GitHub's actual + perceived lack of reliability

No, I understood that.

How? I want to partake in the thought exercise.

What more could/should GitLab, for example, be doing to capitalize?

I suppose I primarily mean marketing - perhaps the most immediate concrete example I can think of is some sort of co-promotion alongside some mainstream vibe-coding tool that positions them as the git host of choice.

Remote Afghanistan has 100,000 medical providers working in 34 languages?

34 dialects? The numbers are here and there, you know.

Is there a process server at your place yet?

You didn’t have to, but possibly that was preferable to confrontation.

1.) Exceptions from a society of people, half of which don’t know what a computer is,

2.) the speculative debt - Oracle is (was?) the most buried