I'm more interested to hear who are the "three officials". An anonymous opinion about an issue that involves Microsoft doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in its veracity, not to mention that politico EU is a magazine that thrives on ragebite and excessive dramatism about nothing.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand for some people. The wave in Linux numbers is hugely driven by the overwhelming success of the Steam Deck. The usage seems to skyrocket during holiday season precisely because that's a) when people have time, and b) when people travel.
Signed:
Someone who didn't use their own Steam Deck in September, not even once, because he didn't travel anywhere and prefers to play on his PC / PS5 instead. But man I put a lot of hours on it in August while jet setting around the world. Nothing quite like going diving in Indonesia, and then spending a 2 hour surface interval playing Dave the Diver on the Steam Deck
Honestly most Americans would be healthier walking to their letterbox instead of driving to the end of their driveway. I don't think a tiny barely significant change in health is at all relevant for anything other than your desire to push you own personal preference.
Fuck mornings. Let them be dark so I can spend more time enjoying a beer in the afternoon (did the study consider liver damage?)
very very unpopular after it passed, because the mornings are very very dark and unpleasant
Everything is always unpopular after it passes. Also mornings are always unpleasant. The question is, do you accept that unpleasantness as a trade-off the mind-blowingly brilliant increase in pleasure that is being able to get home from work and enjoy more a sunny day?
Seriously fuck mornings, whether the sun is up or not. I'd trade every second of sun before work for extra sun after in a heartbeat. I can't sit in outside and enjoy a nice beer before work. My employer does random alcohol testing.
It's not parents. It's society. Schools is just one element of it, but everything we do is somehow interlinked and tied together with common understandings of what constitutes "business hours". The shift is far more difficult than any one subset of people adjusting their schedule, which is why this stuff is fundamentally dealt with at the clock level in the first place.
But one thing is clear: This is *NOT* a problem for a state level. There's nothing worse than dividing clocks further in a country. Yes the timezone may not be ideal for everyone, but there's real benefit into having the largest group of people on a consistent time, especially if you're on a border city.
Fun anecdote 1: It's really fun driving down Tweed Heads in Australia and watching one half of the street suddenly be open while the other isn't because as you cross the road to go from the hairdresser to the cafe you change timezone.
Fun anecdote 2: I found out I lost my job on the news because my brilliant employer released an embargoed press release that was due to be lifted at 10am to coincide with a plant wide meeting taking place at 10am. But they forgot to mention to the media head offices (based in NSW/Victoria) that they were talking about 10am AEST. So at 10am AEDT (9am AEST) I learned that they were closing our plant while drinking a coffee in front of the TV showing breaking news.
Depending on where you live the light before or after work may be a case of not preferencing it before or after, or not having to worry about it at all. The idea that a solution "works best" for people's "natural clocks" is just gas lighting. If it worked best for people there wouldn't be a debate. If it were part of any natural clock we wouldn't have a sudden 1 hour shift.
This won't ever suit everyone. There's only pro and con argument to be made based on people's personal situation and above all: desires.
Me? I say DST year round. Maybe if kids learned there's no scary monster in the dark the next generation wouldn't grow up to be such wimps. And as for the adults? Well I'm not a morning person, fuck those people, let them sit in the dark while I enjoy my evening in the sun
And now let's hear from the morning people.
And the helicopter parents while we're at it.
Or put in basic street lighting while also not raising a bunch of soft little fairy floss wimps?
Presumably because people in the USA are so soft their kids can't spend a few minutes in the "dark" (streetlights are over 200 years old now)
or even half the stuff he does to others.
Well we'd have all tried grabbing him by the pussy but none of us have hands big enough to do justice to the massive pussy that TACO is.
They were talking about the present tense. Your privacy is being tracked by every private corporation and bought and sold for profit. Your security is getting shot or strangled by law enforcement at random, sometimes execution style while you're already on the ground. Your freedom extends to being detained and jailed for the colour of your skin despite being a full US citizen.
If anything facial recognition would be an upgrade compared to what you currently enjoy in this country.
Actual commercial launches are minting money.
Hardly. You can read their actual reports:
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sec.gov%2FArchives%2Fe...
The only part of their space business that is "making money"' is the starlink thing, and it is only "making money" because Space X isn't charging them for the most expensive part - the constant launches.
Everything else is a heavy money loser, even with the huge amounts of government grift and the business model is the classical "build it and they will come". Which usually doesn't happen.
"Space X-AI" is a lot of blablabla and wishful thinking with a huge loss to show for.
It's not. Full disk access is sticky. When you grant it, the app has it until you go into settings and revoke it.
You're interpreting it in the context of typing "sudo" on the command-line granting a one-time permission. And the original statement from Apple (after correcting the "every -> very" error in the summary) makes it clear that this is *not* what is being proposed, so if that was the original poster's intent, then it was incorrect.
The way I interpreted the original sentence — "They're going to make it like sudo where when you give permission to a program to write protected files once it has it forever after" — is that they're going to make it like the sudoers file, where you edit it to grant permission to a program to do something, and it permanently has the right to do that... which is exactly what happens when you grant full disk permission, just with a dialog box instead of editing a file.
That said, I'm not sure if that's how the original statement was intended to be interpreted. It was a bit confusing.
Some would argue that censoring spam is bad due to free speech, once again, fuck your free speech as I don't want to associate with spammers. Security of body, should we put up with speech preaching violence?
Nope. And this is why I object to the phrase "censorship is bad". *Unreasonable* censorship is bad. But not all restraint on speech is bad.
"Well, it don't make the sun shine, but at least it don't deepen the shit." -- Straiter Empy, in _Riddley_Walker_ by Russell Hoban
