I would like to offer a similar, but somewhat different opinion on one aspect of what you talked about regarding "revshare":

If I notice and issue on my own, and it bothers me enough / I feel that other users would benefit from it, I have no issue providing that information to the source maintainer for free.

If however, I am contacted by the maintainer in anyway requesting feedback, suggestions, or input (i.e. "Rate us on the app store!", "Email us with any problems you have.", etc.) I except any feedback I provide to be worth more than an unprompted message, and in turn, I expect something like a lower bill, a discounted rate on their store front, a credit in their auth page, or some other kind of material gain from it.

Basically, if I am being solicited and prompted to do something, it wasn't my idea in the firsr place, so it ought to be worth my time to do so. They have already gone to the effort of asking, so they (presumably) find value in it. I ought be compensated for that value.

Using Google as an example: one of the few products of theirs I like is Opinion Rewards. They actually pay you (in store credit) for responding to their surveys. It's a fair trade off. They ask me basic habits related to shopping, etc. I get a 25 cents or so every time I respond.

Interested to know: when you experience that, have you addressed it directly and said that you have an issue with it, and want them to stop? If so, do they try to pretend they aren't doing it? Or do they apologize and own up to it? Or what? I've been on the interviewer-side, but haven't run into that. I would absolutely see that kind of thing as an ethics violation; like paying someone else to pretend to be you for the interview process.

Personally, any time I have ever been the interviewee, I write up notes for things to cover during an interview, or list a few common problems, etc. I've dealt with in the past, but I would strongly prefer to share my screen with them so they can see I'm not getting "assistance" from an LLM or whatever. I just personally get very, very stressed when I interview for a job. Having a simple set of notes helps keep me on track with covering XYZ.

I explicitly make it so I cannot regain access to my computer in the event that my memory becomes faulty.

I would be in an impaired state, and cannot function in way that would be conducive to either work or pleasure in terms of computer use.

That is to say, the entire reason why I have password security at all is to keep out people who do not know the password. If someone does not know the password, they should not be able to access the system. That obviously and clearly applies to myself as much as any other person. "If you do not know it, then you do not need it."

Maybe saying something like this would make things clearer:

> His directed intention was to disrupt communication. He did not explicitly target EMS calls, however, his actions impacted EMS communications because of his intentions to disrupt communications.

Example:

If I poison the water for a city, my directed intention may be, "to lower pollution in the region". I am not specifically targeting children, however, a consequence of my intentions of poisoning the water will cause the death of children.

This fellow intentionally took a disruptive action. The consequences of those directed disruptions may have caused (had caused?) catastrophic consequences - that is part of why what he did was illegal. In breaking that law, he became culpable for the outcome for all of the harm caused, targeted or otherwise. Ultimately, it was an intention which presupposed, "My personal opinion supersedes all others." It's an self-centered obscenity without regard to others.