"And the presentation looks suspiciously like yet another WM."

Of course. Never forget the true reason many new users adopt Linux is desktop "ricing". Utilitarian considerations only matter to the tiny minority of utilitarian users.

Most computers are entertainment machines (which is fine) and that consumer demographic (like those who automatically like social media posts with cat pictures) are easy to please.

Linux adoption greatly benefits from the limited appearance options offered by Windows. If MSFT want quicker uptake of new Windows versions it would be wise to invest in easy appearance customization.

Understanding users as they are is key to giving them what they want. That need not be honestly explained because admitting love for trifles is uncomfortable for some.

PBS is primarily (85%) privately funded. It will continue to produce shows like Masterpiece, Nova, Frontline, and Sesame Street and people in places like Boston or Philadelphia will continue to benefit from them.

What public funding does is give viewers in poorer, more rural areas access to the same information that wealthy cities enjoy. It pays for access for people who don't have it.

By opting out, Arkansas public broadcasting saves 2.5 million dollars in dues, sure. But it loses access to about $300 million dollars in privately funded programming annually.

Seriously, the idea that we know all the practically important physics there is is the kind of thing only somebody who's never done science or engineering would believe.

Industrial R&D is important, but it is in a distrant third place with respect to importance to US scientific leadership after (1) Universities operating with federal grants and (2) Federal research institutions.

It's hard to convince politicians with a zero sum mentality that the kind of public research that benefits humanity also benefits US competitiveness. The mindset shows in launching a new citizenship program for anyone who pays a million bucks while at the same time discouraging foreign graduate students from attending universtiy in the US or even continuing their university careers here. On average each talented graduate student admitted to the US to attend and elite university does way more than someone who could just buy their way in.

Republicans equate being pro-market with being pro-big-business-agenda. The assumption is that anything that is good for big business is good for the market and therefore good for consumers.

So in the Republican framing, anti-trust, since is interferes with what big business wants to do, is *necessarily* anti-market and bad for consumers, which if you accept their axioms would have to be true, even though what big business wants to do is use its economic scale and political clout to consolidate, evade competition, and lock in consumers.

That isn't economics. It's religion. And when religious dogmas are challenge, you call the people challenging them the devil -- or in current political lingo, "terrorists". A "terrorist" in that sense doesn't have to commit any actual act of terrorism. He just has to be a heathen.

no problem.

I'm actually responding to the AC above you. He is arguing that the attack wouldn't make any sense for either country to make, based on *national* interest. I'm pointing out that's not the only framework in which *regimes* make decisions.

Just put it in context: Today Russia struck the Pechenihy Reservoir dam in Kharkiv.
Russia launched the war because they thought it would be a quick and easy win, a step towards reestablishing a Russian empire and sphere of influence, because Putin thinks in 19th century terms. Russia is continuing the war, not because it's good for Russia. I'd argue that winning and then having to rebuild and pacify Ukraine would be a catastrophe. Russia is continuing the war because *losing* the war would be catastrophic for the *regime*. It's not that they want to win a smoldering ruin, it's that winning a smoldering ruin is more favorable to them and losing an intact country.

Stability is relative. Compared to reinstalling Win9X so often I only recently forgot my most-used 98SE product key, Win2K was a breath of fresh air, especially for dual CPU rigs formerly afflicted with NT 4.0.

There may be a silver lining.

Desperation will ensure sales to the only customers (PC building enthusiasts) who will still care about traditional removable RAM.

Normals never install an OS, never open their computers, and never install internal hardware upgrades. People who do are "techno-divergent".

Apple demonstrates soldered RAM and storage are no barriers to consumer sales with zero need for a hobbyist market.

Ancient Slashdotters remember COAST (Cache On A STick) and why it went away.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

Today we have ROAST (RAM On A STick) which only exists for customers who cannot afford to max out RAM on computer purchase, there being no (conventional user to whom computers are magic) downside to max RAM.

Being able to buy a PC with a cheap spinning rust hard drive and the least offered amount of RAM then binning those and maxing out with aftermarket parts (mostly Crucial RAM in my and many others case) was great while it lasted but the vast majority of PCs go from womb to tomb without upgrades and will in future.