Did the flow ask them explicitly for scopes? If not, then they should know there are no restrictions.
It also seems, from the post, that customers were "long asking for scoped tokens" so who and why assumed that this particular token can only add and remove custom domains?
The author is getting roasted here and not without reason.
Things have changed. I worked with a very senior and professional recruiter at FB during that time. While things didn't work out then, someone else reached maybe a year and a half ago for a fairly similar role -- massive difference, strictly a disposable drone style process and barely a conversation. I chose to not even start the process.
A sample size of one but many anecdotes together can make a trend.
iPad is the best consumption device in existence. Reading, video, casual games, it handles all without breaking a sweat. And as speech recognition and translation into intent using LLMs and other tools continues to improve, the keyboard will become less critical and so will be the shortage of screen real estate.
I'm excited about the future of the tablet form factors.
People can have different lived experiences and it's OK; they are differently valuable and beneficial. I'm a certified unc, easily double the age of your oldest, and I have 0 animals depending on me for survival. It means, among other things, that I can simply decide to leave town for a week and don't need to arrange for replacement humans to take care of other living beings -- and this is a valuable freedom to have.
I think people living outside the US don't realize how few disputes here are actually allowed to use the official legal system when dealing with companies of non-trivial size. Many employment contracts, many service contracts, and even website terms of use require mandatory arbitration in lieu of pursuing one's claims in court.
And arbitrator companies (some of which are explicitly for-profit) know the hand that feeds them.
A unified front from tech companies could have stood a chance, but there's too much money to be made and the imbalance of power is too great without departing the area of influence of the US government entirely (and then go where? China, UK, Australia, etc. are equally not shy of coercing commercial capabilities in pursuit of government goals, including military goals).
The housing market is a textbook example of the opposite of a free market. In most markets, anything that does not "improve the character of the neighbourhood" is impossible to build by design.
Most chunks of the computing market should be thought of as a text book example of a 'free' market that operates with collusion with the few well monied "competitors" ensuring they don't put each other out of business.
Lets say you wanted to jump into the hard drive producing market. It's going to take you a few years to get there and a lot of billions of dollars. By the time you're close to producing units the existing players will suddenly drop the prices to the point where you cannot produce profits for as long as they need to. Aka, your competitors can collude longer than you can remain solvent. And yes, in two decades you will win the court case against them. And other than a fine nothing will happen because they're are so few manufactures that they are too big to fail.
The better way of putting it is that collusion is ultimately limited by the ease of entry into and exit from the market. The existing players don't need to "suddenly" drop the prices when a new entrant appears, because they've been doing that already.
It's only when supply bumps into short-term capacity constraints and price must rise enough to fully ration demand that this assumption fails. But then even if a new entrant appears that's no reason to drop prices unsustainably, because why would you? They're not taking any share of the market away from you, they're serving new demand.
