Have you reviewed objective data on how much benefit private tutoring provides over things like free group tutoring and dirt cheap to free test prep books? It's not nearly as big as you seem to think. There's no special secret expensive private tutors have that can't be found in used test prep books. I notice a distinct lack of evidence in this oft-repeated claim. From the way people like you talk you'd think it was a 400 point difference, instead of very low double digits to nothing.

I'm as appalled by the forced updates as you, but I would point out, this is the home user/power user versions. The 'Get Work Done' version remains the LTSC Enterprise edition (there's no Win11 version yet, just 10). This allows more control over telemetry and updates. Win11 LTSC should be coming out later this year... of course, it won't fix all the problems, all the horrendous UI-ruining choices will remain, which is enough to keep me away from it. 10 Enterprise LTSC gets security patches through 2032 at least.

What repeat offenders did they fail to terminate? The word of poorly programmed bots run by companies making money off sending DMCA complaints for the record companies shouldn't be sufficient to establish proof an offense occurred. Get 3 court judgements, then you can terminate someone for repeat offending.

Meanwhile, they've completely broken HDR. My same monitor and same video card, HDR worked perfectly on Windows 7. On 10/11, it's irreparable broken. For some reason, the OS always turns the physical backlight *down* instead of up. I've spent weeks over different big thrusts at trying to fix it. But nope, they can't get simple fucking HDR right. Meanwhile they've absolutely trashed their UI and loaded down the OS with shovelware, telemetry, and spam. Since 7 it's been one step forward, five steps back.
Oh and I have 64GB of RAM. I can only use 75% of it before apps start crashing with out of memory errors. Same even after full reinstalls of different versions.
Why should I give a shit about the things on your list when the basics have been screwed up so bad? "Proud"? Yeah, I guess like someone with a rusted out Pinto with the doors fallen off and steering wheel which just picks a random direction in response to input, plastered with ads like it was in NASCAR and with 50 sensors monitoring everything including the words you say, but the engine is a souped up turbo V8 with 500 horsepower!

1) Not really a justification for banning it. You could apply the same argument to adult porn; kids are absolutely groomed with it. Also not clear how you apply any limiting principle to this line of thought and don't wind up demanding crypto "back doors".
2) Can be true, but it's not requirement and usually false. People who make this argument are generally too ignorant to have a serious opinion as they don't understand the technology.
3) Conjecture. The actual evidence points in the opposite direction, that it provides an outlet for urges that makes a real victim less likely.
4) And let's be honest, that's what you care about. That's why you readily embrace such bullshit as 1-3. You place more value on punishing the sinners than protecting children. You say it falls flat, but you clearly haven't reviewed the facts and evidentiary record. It *sounds* wrong to you, and since you have other priorities, you're uninteresting in finding out whether it's *actually* true. Fake CSAM is the only plausible way real CSAM production would go down; real CSAM sure won't decrease if you outlaw the fake stuff, that should be uncontroversial.

It's one thing to make images that are visually unable to be detected as real to humans. It's another to make ones a computer can't detect as fake. Seems to be people generating AI CSAM would be motivated to create only images provably fake, so long as only a computer analysis could tell, if you made a law about 'truly indistinguishable'. If the true motivation was to not make it harder for real victims; then the best course of action would be a standard where you could cryptographically provide proof of AI generation. But that instead everyone is aiming for 'even images humans can tell are fake if they look closely' shows how little it's about that. It's gross, and frankly for most people it's more important these sickos are punished than anything-- even reducing the rate of actual victimization. Even if you had conclusive proof of the outlet effect winning over the normalization effect and provably fake images, virtually no one would find that deal acceptable. It's first and foremost about punishment, not crime prevention.
For me, the evidence and logic seems to point towards a world where there would be fewer victims if an outlet was provided, and that without a direct victim involved in creating that, letting such a disgusting and reprehensible thing exist is a price worth paying.

And that's a good case for that scenario, but that's the deepfakes issue; AI in general creates pictures of people who never existed.

That seems about as likely as using that defense for literally every other crime where photos and video are used. Do you also suggest banning AI images in general because it will provide that excuse for all surveillance footage? Or at a minimum, surveillance footage obtained from the victim? "Go ahead, prove this video of me kicking in your door and beating you up isn't an AI deepfake!"
The threshold is 'beyond a reasonable doubt', not 'beyond and possible alternative that's not contrary to the laws of physics'.

Funny how most of the people who talk like you don't ever consider whether humanity is really getting a benefit from a few more fighter planes. Anyone making a comment like yours can go fuck yourself until we're not spending 36 Future Circular Colliders, per year on the fucking military. That of course includes every politician who votes for increased military spending and against scientific research spending.

Your comment is accurate. Not because you're a smarty pants. But because you're too uninformed to know electric vehicles predate the Model T and there were various models around the same time, that don't compare to modern EVs either. The first Model T came out in 1908; in 1912, the Standard Electric looked a lot like the Model T and got 110 miles per charge.

So yes, this is like comparing the early EVs to the Model T; and like those, they're decades removed from being truly useful. But sure, keep on being snarky with your projection.

And thanks to Republicans, a lot of people think "deregulated" == "government won't take as much my money".

This is just untrue. The NSA routinely gives info to the DEA to use for petty drug busts. The DEA uses parallel construction to hide the source.

For me, dropping it 3ft onto a plastic floor, while it was in a rubber case.
We're still in the stone age with glass strength.

I don't know, I think there might be something to the idea that people so desperate to see a movie they'd assault their eyes with a garbage cam rip rather than wait a couple weeks/months for a DVD or HD pirate copy to come out might very well pay.

There's a fucking huge difference between "this book is racist, you shouldn't publish it and people shouldn't buy it!" and "We're banning these books by law, enforced by armed agents of the state forcing compliance."
Don't equate these two. They're not the fucking same. Funny how all these idiots who think it is the same invariably vote right, almost like they're just looking for any ill informed excuse to justify their bullshit.