>>714752183
>>714750654
It doesn't matter if a company has not been involved with a planned obsolescence model before or presently, what matters is if anyone part of it has been discussing that behind closed doors at boardrooms, conventions, ceremonies or wherever, what matters is if they convinced the rest to agree or follow along but keep otherwise silent unless they need to pre-emptively oppose anything that would impede unknown pending efforts or potential opportunities.

I'll put it to you with this absurd analogy. Every serial killer was innocent before their first murder. So, it would be technically wrong to have them arrested before that. But, aside from those where it was a crime of passion on the spot, before most of them committed their first homicide they likely took steps towards it happening successfully and getting away with it to do more or there would be no murders.

Now, imagine going back in time and trying to warn their first victim about their fate so they can avoid it or defend themselves at least, but they don't believe you, so you point to the strange behavior of the culprit and they say
>Huh? They've never done anything bad before so purchasing cleaning supplies, Lyme, large durable garbage bags, a bonesaw, and a windowless van they're seemingly monitoring my daily routine from could be for any number of things. There's no proof of ill will.

There is no benefit to being that naive. You don't see farmers letting the young of predators waltz onto their property on the grounds
>Well, they haven't done any harm so far!
They build fences, and they blast anything that crosses that fence whether it's just curious or taking a shortcut or threatening their livestock.