Having all of your data off-site in the cloud without local back-ups is as foolish as having all of your data local with no off-site back-ups.

"Most of the other rebuttals being offered, are logically incoherent, and, as such, are not likely to change the minds of the victim-blamers," is perhaps the funniest bit of empathy-challenged nonsense I've read in a while. Because the people who are irrationally blaming the victims are clearly going to be persuaded only by the most mathematically sound argument?

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are an embarrassment to most people who are for the ethical treatment of animals. They are the intellectual equivalent of anti-vaxxers, homeopaths, and people without celiac disease who won't eat gluten.

Has this class of data been termed "Dark Data" yet?

One step closer to those Heisenberg compensators that Miles and Reg were always trying to fix.

The fact that I didn't challenge the premise doesn't mean I accept it. Whatever reason they had for these policies, they didn't anticipate that it would empower bullying, which would cause them PR problems when that became evident.

What's troubling is the fact that no one at Facebook contemplated the possibility that this policy would be used as a form of bullying. Their aribtrarily-enforced rules about nudity are routinely used the same way by homophobes, who go around reporting innocuous photos (and even illustrations) of partial male nudity or even just gay couples kissing or showing affection, causing headaches, suspensions, and even bans of gay people from the site. And they do so with complete impunity because they can do so anonymously, and there is no penalty for false reports. The users who are reported are given no right to challenge their accusers (or even know who they are), and effectively no right to appeal. Facebook's own policies and procedures facilitate and empower this kind of harassment and abuse. And they're just now noticing?

I'm pretty sure I've heard this story before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

A couple times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Do they get tickets because they drive these vehicles, or do they drive these vehicles because they're the sort who get tickets?

Half correct. Adobe's Creative Cloud software is subscription software, but it is not web-based. The "cloud" bit in the name is just buzzword bingo; the apps are installed and run locally as Windows/OS X executable binaries, just as they always have, with check-ins to confirm that you've paid your protection money this month.

Of course the subscription aspect is reason enough for many people to walk way from Adobe (as I have). I know many illustrators have turned to the Manga Studio for comics production, or the GIMP if they can accept its limitations (e.g. lacking CMYK support). Some people can likewise get by with Free software such as Inkscape or Scribus to replace Illustrator and InDesign, respectively. Serif (which currently has graphics apps for Windows) is undertaking development of a full-featured commercial Creative Suite replacement for OS X, and their Illustrator-substitute Affinity Designer (first piece of the puzzle) is nearly ready for release.

So I guess your eyes glossed over before you got the part where I talked about how someone is still maintaining current releases of Firefox to run on the original iMac (from the 20th century)?

Why would there be any question that Chromium could still be compiled for 32-bit CPUs? It it's open-source, it can be. The only question is whether anyone cares enough to do it.

The Firefox devs walked away from PPC processors some time ago, but there's enough interest in that platform that an independent fork of its code has been maintained.

Do they wipe the screens of their ipads with kleenexes and q-tips, which they keep with the band-aids and aspirin next to a refrigerator full of cokes, in the room where they make xeroxes, next to the escalator?

One of the biggest limitations of the Shooter genre is right there in the name.

No, mathematics and logic are about provability. Real-world phenomena can't be proven; they can only be shown to have worked a certain way every time we've observed them so far. (I've dropped this rock 100,000 times, and every time it has fallen ... but I can't prove that it will next time.) If you want absolute proof you need to stick to theoretical phenomena. Or chuck it all and just believe something with absolute faith because it's written in an old book, like the other people who are afraid of their "truths" being subject to challenge.