The entire summary, and many people here, are using PowerPoint and presentations interchangeably. So what do they REALLY mean, do they hate PowerPoint itself, the tool, or do they hate the idea of a presentation or slides, a concept used for many decades, or do they hate the person who does a lousy job at making and performing a presentation?

I don't like PowerPoint, as it's painful to use and oozes Microsoft out of every pore, but I don't hate presentation software as a general concept.

"You propose to replace it with a sole-source, crony capitalist, 'state corporation', to take advantage of the important synergies between the public sector's capabilities in corruption and mediocrity and the private sector's sophistication in financial and organizational malfeasance?"

(No, I'm not going to write it! NO! I said! My will is strong! I cannot...)

In Soviet Russia, State corrupts Corporations!

(Dagnabbit...)

They used to be called engineers in the UK, in the early days, then the term fell out of use. The original term was "engine-man". BBC articles are so helpful.

You sound offended. Need a hug?

But we don't want to get to know the person better. This is about news and information, not warm fuzzy feelings. I could read a reasonable summary in 20 seconds and move on, without every worry about what the writer looked like or what the facial expressions were while writing.

People get rich, other people think they must be a true genius.

I got recruiter spam to work for a company. It pointed out in parentheses that the CEO was the cousin of Elon Musk. Just raw name dropping, because no one could be so stupid as to think someone's relatives say anything about him. Just more celebrity worship.

Online copies are just RAID done at the file level instead of the block level. The reason that RAID is not considered a substitute for a backup is that user error or a compromise can damage all online storage. If your backups are online, they are not backups, they're just redundancy.

You can skip this add in 10, 9, 8, 7...

It's basically just a baby monitor, inside a teddy bear. Not sure what's so creepy about it, it's not for google to spy, but for parents and homeowners. I swear I've heard of something just like this before, and not just in a movie. I've definitely heard of less fuzzy things that people use to monitor their house while at work, and remotely yell at the cat to get off the table.

Not true anymore. Just come up with the idea, then threaten to sue. The patent office no longer requires a working or scale model before granting a patent.

There were a few things (GDI handles and suchlike) that had very small limits. Once you exhausted them, the system was basically unusable. There was a little program you could run that would show the number allocated vs allowed. By the time you'd launched one program, they were normally 60-90% gone.

These two are related. OS/2 needed 16MB of RAM to be useable back when I had a 386 that couldn't take more than 5MB (1MB soldered onto the board, 4x1MB matched SIMMs). Windows NT had the same problem - NT4 needed 32MB as an absolute minimum when Windows 95 could happily run in 16 and unhappily run in 8 (and allegedly run in 4MB, but I tried that once and it really wasn't a good idea). The advantage that Windows NT had was that it used pretty much the same APIs as Windows 95 (except DirectX, until later), so the kinds of users who were willing to pay the extra costs could still run the same programs as the ones that weren't.

I never ran 3.0 on a 386 to try that. On Windows 3.1 it wouldn't work, because the OS required either (286) protected mode or (386) enhanced mode. Running 3.0 on a 386, the DOS prompt would use VM86 mode (yes, x86 has had virtualisation support for a long time, but only for 16-bit programs). Windows 3.0 could run in real mode, so would work inside VM86 mode. In real mode, it didn't have access to VM86 mode (no nested virtualisation), so probably couldn't start again.

I'm not sure if it ever became a real product, but the Novell guys did have Netware running as a paravirtualised Xen guest. Apparently it was quite an interesting challenge, as Netware was one of the few operating systems to use rings 1 and 2 on i386.

And Windows 3.1 lost real mode support. You could run Windows 3.0 on an 8086 with an EGA screen and 640KB of RAM (I did - the machine originally shipped with GEM). I think 3.1 still have 286 protected mode support, but didn't work very well unless you ran it in 386 enhanced mode. It was a bit sad that the version of Windows that required an MMU didn't use it to implement memory protection...