Please link to the post you made Feb 6 2023 when Blinken decreed the use of Calibri for also-stupid reasons.

Because calling this a wasteful bother and not that just means you're in ignorable tendentious hypocrite.

Thanks for playing.

As opposed to the open corruption on display with the President personally involving himself in making sure the deal resolves in favor of a major financial backer.

I suppose you have nothing to say about that.

I care about the kids, and I don't think this is treading on them, I think it's pushing them to have IRL relationships, and that's a good thing. I say that as a nerd who had few friends when I was a teen (in the 80s), but even normal, social kids today have far fewer real friendships and many of the geeky kids like I was now have none at all.

We're a social species, we need and crave socialization, but social media is to real relationships like drugs are to the normal joys of life; a false but massively-amped substitute for the real thing, addictive and harmful. It's perfectly possible to get high or drunk from time to time and still enjoy real life, but you have to use the artificial happiness in moderation and control. There are really good reasons why we try to keep kids away from drugs and alcohol, and keep adults away from the really powerful and addictive stuff, and get them into treatment when they get hooked (well, in the US we mostly just put them in prison, but some parts of the world are getting smarter and focusing on treatment).

The same logic applies to social media. We need to figure out how to tame its effects on adults, especially those who are for some reason especially vulnerable and get very warped by it. IMO, it makes perfect sense to just try to keep kids off of it entirely, especially since we don't really understand it yet.

True. If we were to make the decision based on medical and scientific bases, the drinking age would be 25.

anthropo...genic? I'm not sure what anthropomorphic climate change would be like.

So this isn't at all what you asked for, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway: Ubiquiti. You'll pay more and they're all PoE rather than wireless, but if you spend the money and run the wires (hey, you have to run a wire for power anyway, might as well use it for data, too) you won't regret the results.

Actually he tried and partly failed because it was only partly legal.

That might not stop him from trying, and unless Congress or the courts rein him in, it won't stop him from doing it. As I pointed out above, in this case it's unclear that anyone would have standing to sue (not taxpayers; it wouldn't be tax money -- maybe nVidia or China, but they like the deal), so stopping him would probably require Congress to act. And what are the odds that the Republican Congress would grow a spine?

"Not be possible" is too strong.

It's clearly possible unless Congress or the courts prevent it, even though it is clearly illegal. But Trump is doing lots of things that are clearly illegal, which is why the courts keep issuing injunctions to stop him (and then SCOTUS keeps staying the injunctions to let him go ahead and do it anyway, at least for a while). In a sane world, the fact that an action is illegal would be a stronger constraint because the president would have to be concerned that Congress would impeach and convict him, and he would have to be concerned about potential criminal liability. In the world that exists, the GOP leadership in Congress refuses to do their job to rein in the executive, and SCOTUS has declared the president above the law so there are few practical limitations on his power.

So far, the only thing that seems to really make Trump back off is when the stock market crashes.

Nevertheless, a slush fund of several billion dollars per year that the president is truly able to spend with complete discretion would be a significant additional increase in power because it's not clear that anyone would have standing to sue, so courts could not intervene regardless of constitutionality. Congress would be able to intervene, of course, but, again, the GOP-led Congress has almost completely abdicated. I had to add "almost" only because they actually did stand up to him on the Epstein files (sort of; the bill left Pam Bondi with near-total freedom to withhold anything she wants, not legally, but practically).

No, Trump is more secretive than most other presidents. You're confusing "unfiltered and disorganized" with "transparent". I do have to grant that he's incredibly transparent about his corruption. Well, maybe. He has been transparently corrupt in lots of ways, but it still seems likely that there's more corruption which he's keeping hidden.

"use their personal card for work travel and then file paperwork for reimbursement"
Oh no, you mean like 80% of businesses do?

THE HORROR that someone is actually checking this shit off and signing for it.

Oh, and then the person themselves gets the rewards for their travel which is pretty awesome, instead of the organization using some GSG9's ff miles so Hegseth can pinch the stewardii in first class.

It was probably minimally profitable even with the Xbox 360 hardware issues. Still Xbox was a small part of MS so there was not a lot of profit pressure on them. Then MS started acquiring major developers. Activision Blizzard was a $69B purchase alone. Now MS has more profit expectations of Xbox.

Except many actions of MS says otherwise. For example, MS and Asus just released their new gaming handheld Asus ROG Xbox Ally X. It does not play Xbox games. It plays PC games. MS has been telling the consumer that ”Everything is an Xbox" from smart phones to PCs.

Tell me you don't do actual work without outright saying it.

The kind of people who are wanting/trying/thinking about killing excel are, in my view the same people who believe the same thing about email, and think you can do useful ongoing work communication on teams or other shit-chat platforms.

In May DOGE deactivated more than a HALF MILLION credit cards that were just floating around in Gov't slush drawers that couldn't be attributed to a specific employee, and this was noted as "nearly 10% of all the official credit cards held by the federal govt"...meaning the gov't had 5 MILLION open cc accounts.

Where did you read that? If it's true it would be momentous. A totally discretionary fund of $2-6B per year (based on nVidia's projections of selling $2-5B per quarter to China) would give the president enormous unchecked power.

I've spend some time searching and haven't found anything to substantiate this claim. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to see where you got the idea from.

Do you have any way to suss out correlation versus causation on that?