Legality is all about clever interpretation of language. Depending on what your definition of "is", is, or whatever. Here are some alternate interpretations for your enjoyment.

We reviewed the code = we looked at some code. This does not mean code was changed. In fact, it probably wasn't changed.

Ensure our customers' security = too nebulous to be meaningful. Security according to whom? Security in which sense? Do they think that the overall security of everyone is improved if their users can be spied upon to prevent violent crimes happening to other users? What is the timeframe between an exploit and a patch? You can't fix everything, because fixing costs money - so how much exploitation / negative PR does it have to reach before it gets acted upon?

Industry-leading security = some freebies for your game of buzzword bingo. You can't measure security like that. Sure, you can compile some metrics from past data, and maybe have a metric that you can compare to another company's metric, but that doesn't give you a complete picture of security. What about what the users are encouraged to do by popular software and blogs? The end-user's security is out of your control. As it should be.

Take appropriate steps = some coders were tasked with presenting options to their managers, who slimmed those options down for their managers, who decided whether various things were appropriate, using decision-making tactics that the coders may not have been privy to. Maybe they said no to the steps due to the cost of fixing it, or the upcoming new version making the broken one obsolete. Maybe that's where it stopped, and they called that appropriate steps. If not? Positive steps may not have been taken, profitable steps were probably taken, incompetent steps were almost certainly taken. Pork barrel maneuvering may have happened in those meetings too. You know, "we can fix it if we can increase our budget by X" or "we'll need to get more people working on project Y since it includes that fix". And it would be pretty simple to create a fix and put in a new back door in the same patch... fix it, say you fixed it, and shuffle the new one under the rug.

Stay ahead of malicious hackers = We're really hoping that these nerds are right that this is going to be hard to break, because we spent a lot of money letting them research it instead of making some other part of the experience more stylish.

Defend our customers = When they are attacked, we will shake our fingers and give those nasties such a tut-tutting! Maybe we'll release a patch in three to six months or a year or two, if the managers interpreting their budgets and allocating it to those spreadsheet columns allows that. Otherwise, we'll just tell the engineers to make sure they fix that in the next version but the deadline can't slip so if it doesn't make it in under the wire we'll maybe patch it after the fact. Sometimes, too, you have to take a hit from one enemy while you're stopping a hit from another enemy. Maybe you'll let the spiders in your kitchen live, hoping they will help you out with those fruit flies, or you'll let the huntsman spiders live in the basement to keep the black widows out. Could it be that they see an ecosystem and have decided that certain less-problematic enemies are keeping more problematic enemies away? Did someone wine and dine the relevant managers and convince them that they should be allowed to live in there under some pretext of security?

I've worked in a large company for long enough that I know that you say you're doing an "internal investigation" after the problem is in your face, then you probably have six months to two years to complete the investigation before enough people start to jump ship for it to matter. At that point, the product is probably obsolete and your faithful sales reps have been touting each new version as better and more secure.

Call me cynical if you must, but I don't see any actual descriptions of what's being done behind closed doors at any of these companies or what's changing in the patches they roll out.

Yes, you are correct.

Most people do want to work, they just don't want to do a job they hate. If not for a living, then for spending money to buy the luxuries that make them feel like they're the Joneses that everyone else keeps up with, or a sense of purpose, or the social aspect, or just for the sake of having something to do. Go ahead, ask around. Once you get past the "Man, it would be nice to sit around on a beach all day and not have to worry about money" then you can ask "Well what would you do after a few months of that? Wouldn't you eventually want to do something meaningful?" And usually the answer winds up being an existing job of some sort.

Not having to work is a bleak, depressing, unsatisfying life. I've been there (unemployed, all needs provided for by kind a friend) and it was only enjoyable for a few weeks before I got restless and needed to feel like I had something to contribute to society. I wanted spending money to buy toys and software so I could do new things. Fret not, however. It only lasted a couple months that felt like they would never end. I have been a middle class wage worker in the years since then, fully subject to the whims of the free market.

So I don't think that descending into communism is going to work out. It's not within our human nature to have a common wealth among the people, if I may make such a bold claim. Greed is always going to want one more dollar for "me" because "I need it" and "I can't be satisfied as long as someone else has more". So as long as there's some resource freely available to be gobbled up by whoever can game the system the best, it will be, and the few who know how to get it for free will take all of it for themselves.

Counter-point to a lot of arguments from a theoretical viewpoint:

I want to make a living in my log cabin on the dairy farm with my fifteen cows, churning butter. I do not want to expand horizontally (more product variety) or vertically (more of the product). I want to continue making a few dozen pounds of butter every week. For a while, this works out okay, since the general store is buying it from me. Now over the course of some decades, along comes modern America with its modern grocery stores and mass-produced dairy. Now I have to lower my prices to compete with their prices, and less people are stopping by the general store because everything they need is in the store, so I'm not selling as much. These losses compound and I can no longer afford to do this. Or maybe I want to industrialize but I can't afford it because I waited too long and got too far behind the curve.

Do I have an ongoing, indelible right to make a living doing exactly what I'm doing? Maybe, maybe not. It's pretty gray. I have a right to do these activities, and nothing's wrong with getting paid for it. But I can't say I have a 'right' that someone else is trampling upon, if someone else is inventing new ways to do it or making profitable business decisions. Would I not be trampling on their rights if they were disallowed from doing so? Does anyone have a right to stay put and keep making a living there?

Should my living wage be artificially enforced somehow if I decide to keep doing this? How much would you expect the people who mass-produce to be paid? If I'm making a living off 100 units per week, and someone else with some fancy machines makes 10,000 units per week, should they then be allotted 100 times my living? If demand for my product goes down to 5 units per week, should the people with the machines subsidize me so I still make the same money? What if I suddenly find a market for my products in another town and my business explodes back up to 100? Do I have to pay back the subsidies out of fairness?

Do I need to face the obsolescence of my skills eventually? Yes. I can't expect to level off and then be carried for decades. I may need to learn a new trade if my current set of skills is eclipsed or the trade is rendered obsolete. My friend over the hill used to make buggy whips until automobiles became too popular. Now he's been out on the street for decades because he refuses to do anything other than make buggy whips. Eighteen guys down the street made barrels back in the day, now only one of them still makes barrels at all and he's only doing it part-time after his other job at the coal plant. (These examples are fictional but you get the point.)

Now if we modernize the argument - - - Suppose there is an inventory system coded in Visual Basic 3.0 and Access 97. The company keeps demanding more and more from it, wanting features like real-time updates to their website, more capacity, and on and on the list goes. The people maintaining it refuse to learn anything new because they're only paid to be good at VB 3 + Access 97. Should those people expect that they can stay employed doing that forever? What happens when the system is finally replaced, or the company goes under because it just couldn't live in the 1990s any longer?

Being secure in your living is not a right. If you cannot adapt, you will not survive. This is not a new phenomenon in history, and it shouldn't be news to anyone when it happens!

That doesn't make it suck any less or be any less regrettable when someone loses what they have. Perhaps the most regrettable loss occurs when someone loses everything because they're too stubborn to adapt and pick up something new in order to survive. I've seen people graduate from college with degrees in a field that became obsolete within a few years - think printing industry - and they're one step away from homeless, jumping from part time job to part time job, living with their parents (who have jobs that are in no danger), because they went to SCHOOL for that, so they won't do anything else. What ever happened to the idea that if digging ditches is the only job you can get, then go dig ditches?

Oh please, my AudioQuest cables heard that joke coming, with supremely high clarity, before you told it.

If you want to talk about power supplies... You are confusing the maximum available spec with the normal power draw of the system. I have an 800W power supply in my reasonably overpowered Wintel gaming box. It draws ~160W during normal use, up to 300W while gaming. Most people will be fine with a 450W power supply unless they add a whole bunch of extra hardware, especially hard drives. The other benefit you usually see with a higher-wattage power supply is that it's typically built with better power filtering and more efficient components, so you would save money with a more efficient power supply even though it is rated for higher maximum available power. It's not totally intuitive. The more you know!

Either you're using a sign bit, or you are missing a finger. 10 bits gets you a range of 0-1023 or 1-1024.

Chromebooks aren't exactly fast or high-res. Unless you buy the Pixel, but then you might as well buy a real laptop. I wouldn't stick an employee with a slow half-top and expect them to be productive.

Most schools (and corporations, even) with private networks require you to re-register your adapter when your MAC changes. So it wouldn't really work.

That's what I'm saying. Cheers!

That happened to me with a 10' $5 cable from Monoprice. Out of desperation after I broke it the other day, I bought a 3' $5 cable from the bargain bin in the cell phone accessories department at a big store that I usually don't go to... last resort, I know, but it couldn't wait until the next day. And the $5 cable works like the OEM cable.

UI design is good when it enables you to be efficient at a task and it does that. I agree there. However I think his point is more of a UX point. How do you learn other than just hitting things to see what they do? There's no manual, no alternative noob mode with text, no hover-for-tooltip, and no help file. Users shouldn't have to enlist the aid of another user.

User thoughts might include: Is this going to break something? Can I undo it? I'd better not touch it. How do you Google an icon? (You don't.) Why is that there? Where is the menu? Where is the list of things I can do here? I don't want to break anything. It's scary/frustrating because I don't know how to use it, but there is no guidance.

Eventually, you get enough of these negative/confusing emotions and the thought "Ah well, back to iPhone" forms. I've seen it firsthand with several people who tried to switch because they kept having thoughts like that during the whole return period on their Androids.

So you see, it's a fairly basic UX misstep that could be avoided with some sort of hint. It's really unfortunate that it happens all over the Android ecosystem because I like it and want to see it succeed... but they're really shooting themselves in the foot still.

It's when you get two Cheetos that fused together during manufacturing.

You jest, but I'm sure I've rolled my face around on my keyboard and produced a Perl script that does that.

Yup, especially restaurant menus, which are *always* in PDF. It's frustrating when you're on mobile and just want to see the menu before you commit a large party with diverse dietary restrictions to going somewhere.

It's like your sig says.

Trolling is a art.