I haven't been following Atlassian recently and was wondering if you were just tossing that out there... But no, that is literally their plan:
This deal is a bold step forward in reimagining the browser for knowledge work in the AI era,” Mike Cannon-Brookes, Atlassian’s CEO and co-founder, said in a statement.
“Together, we’ll create an AI-powered browser optimized for the many SaaS applications living in tabs – one that knowledge workers will love to use every day,” he added.
Buy a sack of potatoes. No refrigeration needed and you can even use those potatoes to grow more potatoes. Cut two arm holes and one neck hole in the sack and now you have a shift, no need to buy clothes. Piles of raw potatoes make perfect furniture (chair, table, pantry shelf, etc.) Cook and mash potatoes, eat some and spread the rest on the floor for a nice, soft, warm bed.
Microsoft has already said it doesn't matter where your data is stored, it isn't safe from the United States.
But you can change this behaviour in settings, it's just the default for now.
So, if you don't trust Microsoft to handle your documents, but still somehow use MS Word and OneDrive, for the moment you can still stop it from saving your Word documents to their servers.
Again, unconditional surrender by the military, which was no longer willing to defend its country, is not diplomacy. It is a military act. Unconditional surrender is the result of failed diplomacy, it is failure to negotiate an end to a conflict. It's not an "agreement," it is a one-sided act of capitulation.
This isn't nitpicking, you're making a huge reach to call it diplomacy. If you can show me any published book, dictionary or document that says that unconditional surrender is an act of diplomacy, I'll stand corrected. But I'm pretty sure you'll have a very hard time finding such a thing.
Diplomacy is by definition the management of relations between countries, by representatives of the countries, not between a country and another country's military. Germany was not under military rule, so the military wasn't making a decision for the country, and it was not a diplomatic act.
I mean, it's in the first sentence of what you posted [emphasis mine]
The German Instrument of Surrender[a] was a legal document effecting the unconditional surrender of the remaining German armed forces to the Allies, ending World War II in Europe.
The signatories on the German side were
Admiral Hans-Georg von Friedeburg
Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel
General Hans-Jürgen Stumpff
Notice they're all military, not government representatives. These signatories represent the German High Command (military), not Germany itself, it says so on the first line of the terms.
The terms are all about orders to the military and how they will perform the act of surrendering. It is a purely military document. There's nothing about the country, nothing about the government, nothing diplomatic about it. There is nothing in the terms that say what the Allies will do.
You don't have to be a politician to do diplomatic actions for your state.
As I hope you can see now, they weren't performing actions on behalf of the state. They were performing on behalf of the military, and that's a huge difference.
Imagine if the US military signed terms of surrender, or even gave away equipment to another country, on its own, without Congress or the President issuing an order. That wouldn't be considered diplomacy, it would be a military act, and if you can't see the difference, then I guess we're done here.
And ad hominem attacks are used to distract from the weakness of your own argument, which is what you continue to do.
Okay check yourself with ad hominem attacks, asshole.
Germany's surrender was a military act, not a diplomatic one. It was signed by generals, not diplomats or politicians. Germany's surrender was not a negotiated agreement as they were denied any legitimacy to negotiate.
One major agreement of an unconditional surrender is that the troops that disarm won't be slaughtered by the other side when they do.
Holy nitpick Batman. Or strawman? The terms of surrender were unconditional. That their troops wouldn't be slaughtered is implicit and was protected under international law. That's not a negotiation.
I feel attacked