We could have REAL ZOMBIES! YEAH!

:-)

I hear you. Going to be an interesting future, if we live.

Someone who broke their neck and was suffering from paralysis. You can control a chair or exoskeleton. People who can not hear today have cochlear implants, this is not all that different and might (eventually) work better. Or speak, or see. Other people who are disabled in various ways.

Web pages use SVG to render vector graphics. It uses the exact same imaging model as PDF and is implemented in all modern browsers. The web in general has taken a lot of lessons from Adobe because Warnock and Geshke, in the PostScript Red Book, got so much right about how to build an image model that many GUI developers are still learning today. If you start with a PDF, it should be possible to machine-translate it to SVG and present it as a web page.

PDF exists because it is trivial to generate it from the document renderer meant for printing. Although I have once in a while run into an improperly scaled PDF meant to be printed 8-up, I'm just not

Can you provide an example of Slashdot censoring such advice?

Usually this takes two forms: actively downplaying anyone who questions a proprietary software narrative and noticing that the preponderance of comments come from the perspective of accepting proprietary software as legitimate. For the former, try looking for any links to pages on GNU.org's proprietary page where examples that challenge the legitimacy of proprietary control over the user are listed (in a highly organized way both by subject matter with commentary, and by organization). Posts with links to that page (or its subpages) are frequently down moderated and comments from other posters (who ostensibly don't use moderation points) never suggest why. For the latter, one recent example came up where Microsoft was said to "experiment with moving key Control Panel features" much to the chagrin of users who posted in that thread. One response makes a point which tries to engender the reader's sympathy for Microsoft, "Microsoft is in a no win situation, here.". There is no apparent awareness of Windows completely not respecting a user's software freedom. The way for Windows users to win their freedom is to not run Microsoft Windows or any other proprietary software where they are subject to a proprietor's control.

I'm not sure what an "establishment media repeater site" is.

Establishment media is media that frames an issue within the acceptable limits of debate so as to not challenge the wealthiest and most powerful people or organizations. In the context of published computer software that would mean articles which frame the debate around convenience and cost while ignoring software freedom. Proprietary control is assumed and one is supposed to debate which variant of control is appropriate among the available choices. Rarely the terms of debate go to misframing an issue as though software choice is paramount instead of a scam: arguing which is a better word processor, for instance—Microsoft Word or WordPerfect—satisfies choice (there's more than one of them) but ignores that both programs are proprietary and deny the user control over their computer.

It's not hard to see how the ills of proprietary software are ignored and software freedom is never mentioned: in a story about listening devices (Amazon's Alexa, Google's Home, etc.) listening in on people's discussions that are supposed to be confidential and the adverse effect for legal discussions, you don't find much in the way of systemic discussion which frames the debate around how many programs listen in on people and how little control users have over the devices they've surrounded themselves with. One poster asked "Why are you bringing those devices into your house in the first place?" and suggested the alternative of controlling home automation "via an app on your phone, tablet, or computer". The poster said "Siri [is] turned off on all of my devices". The irony is quite rich when one thinks structurally and considers that Siri is proprietary software running on a computer built to give the user only as much control as the proprietor wants them to have. Another poster made a claim beyond available evidence, "You can look at the Alexa app on your phone and see everything that it's transmitted back to the mother ship." which also isn't a structurally advisable view for the same reason as I mentioned before. If data is available the proprietor doesn't want the user to know about, it's not hard to accomplish this. And the real vetting for this spying won't come in the form of checking a page of clips provided by the proprietor. Such vetting will come from vetting complete corresponding source code to the relevant software in order to learn what is possible (not what a UI is designed to reveal) which is exactly what software freedom respects and what these systems deny.

And also maybe stop using the service entirely since they're complete liars and can't even do the one thing they're supposed to do.

Be careful on sites like this when you recommend something like that. /., Hacker News, and so many other establishment media repeater sites usually censor logical, reasonable, defensible advice that results in not handing over one's freedom to businesses. One could reach the same conclusion about, say, running Microsoft's proprietary software when it is revealed that Microsoft harangues users about installing Firefox or Chrome, displayed ads for Microsoft products and its partners' products, forced Windows 10 on Windows 7 and 8 users, blatantly disregarded user choice and privacy, and more. The reason Microsoft can exert such power over the user is that the software is proprietary (the software doesn't respect one's freedom to run, inspect, share, or modify the software). Users might think that a major point of having an operating system is to make the computer do what the user wants their computer to do, just as users of a no-log VPN service expect that that service won't keep revealing logs. Pointing out when businesses lie to their users is typically not received well among those who uncritically read establishment media.

Coding is a useful skill, one which can be picked up while also learning a far more practical language than Swift (such as the other languages the grandparent poster mentioned—Scheme, Python, Ruby, C, or some other language). Learning proprietor-specific stuff to gear your knowledge around what only a proprietor offers is not going to get you the well-rounded "coding" skill you approvingly referred to and such focus isn't likely to help you make money either. Most programming jobs won't revolve around such a narrow focus as Swift.

No, the users are in the no-win scenario because their software freedom (the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify published computer software) is not respected. In the free world users who don't like how upstream developers change things have options which include changing the code to what the users prefer, running older code without fear of timebombs, and even commercially obtaining support for code they want to keep running. Free software (software that respects a users' software freedom) puts the user in a better position to make choices that keep the user in control of their computer to the extent possible.

There is no "version of Windows you can own". Windows is proprietary software and Microsoft can (if/when they choose) make copies of Windows behave in ways we've already seen (forced "upgrades" switching to Windows 10, ignoring a user's privacy setting even at its most ostensibly privacy-preserving value and chatting on a network anyhow, and more) and ways we can't predict precisely because that is the nature of proprietary software (non-free software, user-subjugating software). Technically speaking, there's nothing preventing Microsoft from issuing an update that would make Windows 7 stop running on or after a certain time/date. They could bundle this code with an update that fixes something important to the user, effectively hiding it from the user and tricking the user into installing that code thinking they're getting a fix for something else (and thus tempting even offline Windows users into going online to fetch the update).

Microsoft could have already issued such code before. There is no way to tell if this has happened without doing the inspection work proprietary software prohibits us from legally doing. And in the event someone finds Windows does something users don't like there's no way to legally improve the code (again, proprietary software restrictions), or legally share those improvements with others, all because these are the restrictions of proprietary software. Proprietary software effectively holds users separate and helpless to have a "version of Windows you can own" and treat yourself and your community with respect and dignity.

"Stupid" is pretty strong but ignorant seems fair. Ignorant to think that the issues you identify are resolved by switching from Zoom to this other proprietary meeting system which, for all we know, is capable of doing the same thing. Ignorant for thinking that nationality plays a role here—these systems don't become trustworthy because they originate from one country instead of another. Software is deemed trustworthy by inspection, improvement, and we help other computer users by sharing. Thus software trustworthiness requires software freedom. It seems to me that Jitsi is worth evaluating. There are some related projects on Jitsi's entry in the Free Software Directory as well.

Is Microsoft taken over by Mozilla?

It's important not to ignore the larger more important issue here: software freedom. Mozilla, for all of the irritations Firefox may impose by default, delivers a free software web browser to us all. That software freedom is why Firefox has been the basis of other important web browsers such as the Tor Browser. Microsoft chiefly distributes proprietary software and Edge is no exception even if part of it comes from free software. Microsoft champions "open source" to the extent that developmental philosophy helps Microsoft secure power via proprietary software. Mozilla also offers the only other web engine people use right now which helps keep us away from the web monoculture we've seen in the past.

Software freedom is worthy of being celebrated for its own sake and Firefox continues to be a big step in the right direction. Even if other browsers were to shift their project to be built on some other free browser engine instead of Firefox's they'd still end up highlighting (via proof by existence) the importance of software freedom.

I still support the idea of a debt jubilee. After all, it doesn't do me any good to be the sole economic survivor.

Maybe triage the type of debt. Cancel payday loans first, no one will feel sorry for those vultures. Cancel student loans next, Democrats would support that. After that cancel small business loans, take that load off their business. Then some types of securitized debt, like car loans. Not sure about credit card debt. Not as keen on that one because, most of the time, those are voluntary expenses. Maybe credit card debt for low earners.

Banks are already getting basically free cash from the treasury. They can't survive without an ongoing government bailout. They can either fall in line or get cut off.