Even if it's all coal I bet it's still going to have lower lifetime emissions than running on bunker fuel.

So it's slightly less terrible now, whoopee.

Just watched a coworker try to find an outlook window, not only was it not appearing but couldn't right click the entry in the taskbar menu and move it into visibility. Every few days word documents stop loading correctly, not even all the widgets in the window will draw, have to quit (closing all open windows) and restart word to get it to work again.

Microsoft is still shit, and will always be shit.

That's not how anything works. They might as well sue everyone on the planet for the temporary copy their browser made. How ignorant.

They aren't making verbatim copies.

The only way to get what even looks like one is to use so many of the words from the original as input tokens that you have practically rewritten the output anyway.

Your linked article says to go to a bunch of places way more biased than Wikipedia if you want less bias. What a load of shit.

No one expects them to work for free.

Doctors get paid in the UK, for example.

"Microsoft software now is light years ahead of where it used to be."

Are we talking about the same software?

Stable and works? OneNote crashed when I renamed a note. Teams still isn't able to detect which messages you have read and update the flag on the icon correctly. Microsoft software is just as shit as it has ever been.

Hint, if you have to post that anonymously then you know it's wrong, coward.

"What exactly is he influencing? Certainly not product design. Everything Microsoft produces today is shit"

That sounds like Gates is involved to me...

I mean yeah if Trump's in this isn't worth the paper its written on obviously. But, but I wonder how long it will be before the economics take over and it just happens anyways. There is a difference between stopping new laws from reducing coal usage to those that would subsidize it. Here's hoping in economic forces, and the incompetency of idiots.

You're reading old papers that didn't understand the economics of renewables. Nuclear is more expensive on the whole and longer term to get any up and running. I'd be ok with building more nuclear, but I don't think that's going to happen due to a whole host of reasons. Its easy to underestimate the political difficulties of building nuclear or really any large infrastructure at least in the US. Renewables require a lot less red tape to be cut or public investment. I think we do need to move fast on some kind of energy storage mechanism to deal with days where solar and wind are not capable of meeting load if we aren't also adding nuclear. I guess thats what we're banking on natural gas, which while not carbon neutral is less carbon. And that can be done quick and cheap. Its important to be pragmatic rather than dogmatic to reduce greenhouse gasses asap.

Most companies: yes. But I was intrigued by the specific context of the post above:
Mentioning that the idea of Microsoft open-sourcing MS-DOS 6.22 (an OS that is definitely not supported anymore by Microsoft) would be very great for that specific use case, access to source being extremely important, much more apparently than the fact the PC DOS 2000 is still licensed.

This you bro? Tell your handlers to give you some better lines.

Trump is not smart enough to be a Russian agent and actual Russian agents are not dumb enough to trust him with any damning information. Trump is a Russian asset (and Melania is his handler.)

Telling them is fine, that's not what you're talking about and your use of that word is incorrect at best. I suspect it is more likely disingenuous.