ACK

What's being talked about is the cost of a "custom" domain. Not the M365 services themselves. Those are constant meaning that they don't change because of this new policy.

A domain plus DNS hosting is peanuts, and Microsoft doesn't sell them. Encouraging tenants to brand their usage with a real domain instead of using @tenantname.onmicrosoft.com is probably mostly about getting people to stop using addresses that have "microsoft" in them except for testing and initial setup. Those are intended as placeholders, not production addresses.

You posted as an AC so I'm not going to explain it to you but rest assured you're wrong.

I'm trying to see the use-case and also how it would increase letter volume and also how doing so isn't the environmentally wrong direction in the first place. So help me out.

You're saying that say... I go to a restaurant and they're like "would you like our weekly coupons mailed to you", you could give them your e-mail address instead of your street address, and you'd get the coupons. Right? Why wouldn't you just have them e-mail you? Or... your sister moves to another city and wants to write you a letter and asks for your address, so you could give her your e-mail address and she puts that on the envelopes and you get the letters. Right? Why wouldn't she just e-mail you? Or send a text? I just don't understand the use-case where giving someone your e-mail address instead of street address to get a letter physically delivered has more utility than just using your street address?

Then... the volume. The whole point behind this is that letter volumes are plummeting. Which screws over the economy of scale, and now delivery is non-viable, operating near or at a loss. How does having a sorting station translate e-mail addresses into street addresses generate more demand for letters? More and more people are digitally connected and that's (probably) a one-way trend. How does your idea convince anyone they need more stuff in their physical mailbox when most people are trying to get less?

Finally, the environment. I get it that an e-mail isn't "clean". Electricity generation and distribution isn't without impact. Making electronics isn't without impact. But we've "all" got the devices already if only to download porn. Do we want banks sending us our monthly account statements by killing trees or maybe just popping off a few zeroes and ones to the devices we've already got powered up? I'm just thinking that maybe the extinction of letter service is a good thing, forcing those companies that still send physical invoices and paper checks to bloody stop it and do EFT.

Anyway, maybe I'm misunderstanding where you're going with this. Enlighten me.

It's (per the summary) the same Copilot+ machines that already have it. Panic/gloat when it matters.

You've got 225 characters and almost no punctuation.
You lost track of if you wanted to use "self-diagnosing" or "self-diagnosis", resulting in both.
You were asking a question but forgot by the time you got to the end and went with a period instead of a question mark.

Have you considered that you may have ADHD?

Yes, yes, that's meant as humour not an attack.

While some advertising is for "buy our truck instead of the other company's truck", some of it is "hey, doesn't this thing that you didn't know about or plan on buying look really good?"

This is an industry that brought us "limit 10 per customer", purely to prime your brain with the number 10 so you'll settle on buying ~6 of the thing instead of deciding from 0 that you really need 4.

They do manipulate and a lot of it isn't something most people can consciously correct for. If the ad-supported plan is $10/mo cheaper, I'm saying the average person is going to spend more than $120/yr on that extra trash. It's why they're doing it. It works.

Commercials have a hidden cost consumers don't think about. If you've got a choice between a service's pricing plan with commercials and a plan without, you can count on that you're statistically likely to spend more than that difference on other crap. It's manipulative and the best way to deal with advertisement is to do whatever you have to to not expose yourself to it in the first place.

The other problem for me is that there are multiple services, each of which is a data breach waiting to happen. I want my personal and payment information as few places as can possibly be.

I too require a single source clearinghouse with all the content, ad-free. At the moment the only place that's available rhymes with abhorrent.

Putting a code into a driver at an originating machine is how you prevent User X from using Printer Y or Feature Z (colour for instance). It doesn't address the use-case(s) that pull-based printing solves: roaming and ensuring that the person who gets the page is the person who printed it.

With pull-based printing, your print jobs sit in a server queue somewhere. You can typically walk up to any printer and release the jobs, allowing you to work around printers that are busy/inconvenient/broken without knowing advance. Also, the jobs don't come out until you release them at the printer end, so your hand is the hand that takes the pages.

These are features that companies pay for in the form of third-party software. This is not overcomplicating anything; it's baking a set of features that normally requires other software into the Microsoft stack.

It depends. If it's cat videos or unboxing videos or reaction videos at > 1x playback speed, yeah, fewer hours wasted.

But it could also be how-do-I videos. In which case... imagine if they weren't videos at all, and people could just read them. Reading speed is (usually) much faster than speaking speed. A mixed document with instructions in text, labels in picture form, and "like this" moments in quick video bursts would be best of all worlds, I think.

That's not the reality of current cars. It just isn't.

Mine adds ~200km of range in 13 minutes. Means very close to 10% of time spent charging. Drive 10 hours and you need to charge for about 1 hour. Drive 20 hours and you need to charge for about 2 hours. And mine's a performance model, not remotely optimized for range.

Doesn't seem so onerous when it's laid out that way, does it? Dramatically different from "few hours" (ie. about 3) every "couple hundred miles" (ie. about 3 hours of driving). 1:1 and 10:1 are really different ratios.

And again, I'm not pretending that high-speed charging is present in older cars OR that high-speed chargers are present everywhere everyone needs to drive OR that they're all in working order OR that there are never any line-ups OR that they're spaced out the way every trip optimally goes OR that every charging session is done in temperatures that allow full speed charging. But if you've got it in your mind that the normal experience for EV drivers is anywhere near what you've said, it's time to eject that.

That is a normal measure of fueling rate on a ICE. It isn't a normal measure of how people drive, which is the context of the sentence you're replying to.

One: they are competitive, for most use cases.
Two: being significantly better in several metric while irrelevantly worse in a couple doesn't matter for most people.
Three: the only thing EVs need to beat - long term - is stubborn people.
Four: I have already granted in this topic that EVs aren't superior or ideal for every use-case. That's a given. Granted. I also grant that there's still a significant up-front price differential. I'm not pretending EVs are orgasmic perfection machines.

Very quaint.
Once again we get into interesting things. Taking a look at some USDOT status from 2018, ~60% of trips... under 6 miles from home. Another ~17%... under 10. Another ~8%... under 15. Another boop, boop, boop three measurements on the graph working out to ~15%... under 30. Meaning - and I quote - 95% 30 miles or less.
Now, I get it. With 200+ million drivers in the US there are a statistically significant number of people and trips exceeding that 30 miles. Sure. But to pretend that being not-actually-tethered to one's home is some kind of hardship is so over-the-top exaggeration. This range anxiety crap isn't based on reality. Again, given there are a non-zero number of exceptions.

Task: find me a statistic on the number of individuals who drive more than say... 1,000km in a single trip more than once a year. 'Cuz that's 10 hours of driving and one hour of charging for my performance EV.

That's twisting what happened. What happened is that you said things aren't improving quickly. I called bullshit and explained why it's bullshit. I didn't ask you to define what you meant. I just demonstrated that there has been a massive improvement. Which there has been.

Ayup, there's the "EVs are a failure because anecdote" moment. You're driving three hours - round trip - at highway speeds every day and can't spare a half-hour for charging. Because you're on vacation. Got it.

Now, if the argument was "I'm in a cabin out of town and the town doesn't have high-speed charging available yet", I'd be sympathetic and understanding. Again I don't claim that EVs are right for every scenario. This might be one where renting a car for a couple weeks while on vacation makes sense. It happens. I've granted that this is a multi-decade transition. That's not expected to happen overnight and yeah, there's work to be done.

NBL. Not bloody likely. The mandates that have been set aren't achievable. But they are useful in encouraging manufacturers to actually make efforts towards transition. If it weren't for governments pressing for improved fuel economy and emissions control, we'd still be driving 1970's cars with leaded fuel and pathetic mileage. Constant pressure encourages improvement because capitalism doesn't. Go ahead and compare US and Canadian Internet services and pricing. The capitalist model in the US has massive companies not competing and only very slowly improving service. In Canada, our reseller laws (amongst others) encourage growth and competition. I don't mean to digress, but the point I'm making is that there's no incentive for a car manufacturer to be the first to put out a more efficient/clean car when it's going to cost more until it reaches the same units-manufacturered scale.

Also. 2035 is a decade away. At the rate of improvement I've shown for the last decade, we may very well have distance/minute refueling at the same value that gasoline has.

For many people - I won't even say most yet because things like apartment dwelling is a huge issue - they already are, it hasn't, and you specifically aren't being forced to do anything.

No. You don't get credit for that. You have - once again - moved the goalposts.

The topic was "it is not getting better very quickly". I demonstrated that to be false. You don't get to pull "it still isn't good enough for me" as a measure of the speed of improvement.

You're pretty clearly going to be one of those people who when 5 minutes charging gets 500km of distance, you'll disregard that you ever posted this.

Please keep in mind that "I need to drive across the planet, every day, non-stop" isn't even remotely normal.

This is true... sort of. But it's also relatively unusual. The stations I've been involved with charge by the total kW consumed. There's no incentive to have more, slower station, so they're generally sized for what the place can provide. And again... this infrastructure is continually improving.

The "pie-in-the-sky wholesale transition to EVs" exists only in the minds of regressives. Almost all pro-EV advocates (myself included) recognize two fundamental truths. 1} best-case-scenario (ie. the unnecessary, almost religious resistance goes away), this is probably something like a 30 or 40 year transition from now and 2} it will probably never be 100% because some use-cases really and truly make ICE the right choice.