No. Larry Ellison is a well known piece of shit. If you support him then fuck you too,b because you're also a piece of shit, just like everyone who voted for the orange child rapist.

IME it mostly works now. It's always slow and stupid and the UI is crap, but most of the features work most of the time

No, most people do not have a motherboard TPM, it's in the CPU.

Oh, I totally get that point, and agree! But my point remains: We don't need to replace Teams-as-a-whole with a craptastic monolithic of mismatched functionality shoehorned into one poorly-behaved application. We need a messaging app, halfway decent teleconferencing, and a collaborative document management platform. And I guess some form of locally mountable cloud storage, if you're a fan of giving your personal data to completely untrustworthy third parties.

I think the bigger problem is trying to replace all of Teams in the first place.

Just give us Skype back! Sharepoint already exists and works fine in a browser (sure, even Edge if we want to go there); and I actively go out of my way to remove OneDrive every time MS shoves it back down our throats. Bam, there goes 90% of what's wrong with Teams.

Spying is a primary use of AI and it makes spying on more people more feasible.

IANAL, but perhaps someone who is could explain why on Earth they went for antitrust rather than something with a lower bar like tortuous interference?

As I understand it, the former is virtually impossible to win even under the best of conditions; the criteria for the latter is practically Google's own defense in this case - "Yeah, we intentionally destroyed any shot at you ever getting another customer solely to boost our own ad revenue, by deceptively offering you a free carrot while we stole the whole farm out from under you - But we don't have a contract with you, so nyah-nyah!"

It's the rapeublicans who are raping children. Literally marrying children so they can rape them.

Did not read your defense of child rape

Hahahahhahahahhah

You claim scientists' predictions were wrong then cite as evidence things which were never mainstream views

You really are a coward

Fortunately, societal expectations have changed radically over the past few decades. In the 1950s virtually nobody was voluntarily child-free. In the '70s that rose for the first time to roughly 10%. By 2010 it was 20%. Today (well, in 2023) it's 29% and still appears to be rising rapidly.

It's one thing to have a vague sense of despair for the future of humanity; it's another matter entirely to act on that feeling if it means your family and most friends will disown you. When I chose not to have kids 30ish years ago, fortunately I had fairly supportive parents (though the family elders nag me at every gathering even now); but I still watched most of my childhood friends basically drop off the map as soon as they had kids. Even at work, where reproductive status is theoretically a federally protected class, I would always get the worst shifts and even when I became a 9-to-5'er, the parents constantly check out early to pick their kids up from random events, and they always get first pick of PTO because boo-fuckin'-hoo they have a harder time scheduling things.

By contrast, today a third or more of someone's high-school friends are likely to remain after the breeders pair up and vanish from circulation. Parents have come to realize they may not ever get grandkids, and if they really want some, they'd better pop out a few extras of their own to boost the odds. And work... Still tries to play those same games, but I'm old enough now to put my foot down and demand they send a copy of any discriminatory policies in writing to my lawyer - To be clear, I'm not actually a litigious bastard, but those magic words are enough to make even the most worthless of HR drones stop parroting "RAAAWK! Employee Handbook, comply, comply!" and engage the brain long enough to realize what they're saying is blatantly illegal.

Whether or not the world is worse today than it was near the end of the Cold War, people are finally (somewhat) free to follow their conscience.

It's already the law at it's willful negligence, so the issue is enforcing existing law, not creating new.

But we won't do that either.

Surely some of these groups will be run by people stupid enough to help us do a fraud!

In this case the graphics capability shouldn't matter that much, as I have disabled animations on the Intel laptop because without that it was horrible. I haven't done any such thing on the AMD one, which also only has 2 GPU cores - it was in a $300 laptop. The Intel machine is a HP Elitebook... I remember when those were actually powerful, back in the Core and Core 2 days.

Yes, but he has to hire in the brain cells.