You can look to what was happening during those years to see why some things happen the way they do. Windows XP came out during the tech slowdown following the year 2000 and crash in the tech sector. Many of you don't remember how Y2K came, and how Wall Street and almost all news outlets were playing it as though there was never a true problem to be concerned with for Y2K, then how the supply of venture capital dried up in 2000, meaning, the startups were failing left and right due to not having access to business loans.

So, Windows XP was there, the tech sector was imploding, and then, as things were starting to get on track, we had 2007 and the recession. 2007(really October 2006), was when Vista came out, but the changes required new drivers, which most of the tech companies had laid off due to the slowdowns/crash in the tech sector. So, bad drivers for Vista caused major headaches. This is why Microsoft mostly ignored Vista when it came to when to drop support for XP. Since then, Microsoft has mostly allowed older drivers to work for hardware in newer versions of Windows, which is why if you look at a lot of the drivers in Windows 11, some of them are 2005 era drivers that work under Windows 11.

Every commercial product has an eventual end of support from the manufacturer, so people complaining when Windows goes for ten years and then loses support(and patches) should be seen as very normal. We do NOT live in a time when the operating system is a subscription service that you MUST pay every year to continue to use, or even to get support for during the support period.

So, you don't like Windows 11, yea, there are a lot of things in the world not to like, but then, to expect SUPPORT and updates for something that is no longer bringing in money also makes no sense. Now, the reason for some of the arbitrary cutoffs and requirements for Windows 11 are actually based around corporate politics.

So, why require TPM 2.0, because in general, TPM shouldn't be a requirement for the OS to work, right? Now, consider, at the end of 2017, we had the big Spectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities were announced to the public. Suddenly, all those Intel chips had security problems that couldn't be patched in a BIOS, it was the design of the chips that were insecure. So, Microsoft put in mitigations. I think on Jan 5th of 2018, that first patch with mitigations was released(note it was a Thursday, not a Tuesday, so the security issues were REALLY serious.

Now, AMD did have chips out there, Ryzen was still new, and did NOT have the security problem that Intel had. Spectre, being about speculative execution, was an issue for all chips(including most non-x86 based), but AMD wasn't hit nearly as hard. I think first gen Intel took a 40 percent performance hit with that security update when it came to I/O related stuff, because the OS had to handle the vulnerabilites. Then the next year, yep, more security problems were found, more mitigations went into Windows to deal with it. And the next....the new chips did address the vulnerabilities, so security improved, but Microsoft had to continue putting more mitigations into Windows, and this made troubleshooting and development more difficult.

So, with Intel being the leading CPU maker, but the source of MOST(not all) of the security issues, Microsoft couldn't come out and say, "Yea, Windows 11 won't support older insecure Intel chips", because that would just cause a major rift between Intel and Microsoft. So, how to address the situation...oh yea, you need TPM 2.0 for Windows 11, that way, the security problems in Intel chips just gets filtered out as those 7th gen and older Intel chips just weren't officially compatible. AMD Ryzen Zen and Zen+ based chips were caught by this as well, even though they weren't the real reason for the TPM requirement, Microsoft still didn't want to point to Intel as the reason for it.

Now, there have been some additional changes over time. MBR vs. GPT/EFI for being able to boot. MBR has been a legacy approach for quite a while at this point, and Microsoft finally made it so only EFI would be supported. While it isn't a problem to convert from MBR to GPT(mbr2gpt is included in Windows), if you do this without the BIOS supporting EFI, you do the conversion and you now can't boot, and you can't undo the change back to MBR. Microsoft does not want to deal with supporting THAT situation either, but 24H2 I think is where Microsoft did the cutoff for MBR support, so even if you get around the supported CPU issue and TPM 2.0 issue, if you don't have EFI support in your motherboard/computer BIOS, you will run into signifiant problems going forward.

Being held back by people who hold onto stuff well beyond its time isn't good for any company, so, a slow process of filtering out old and outdated stuff really isn't horrible, even if you don't like it because you are the one holding onto computers for 10+ years. SUPPORT for old stuff is fine when you don't have to pay employees to provide that support, but if you need to pay millions in wages to continue to update and support a product that doesn't actually bring money in really does become problematic.

Note that I'm not really advocating for Windows 11 as much as showing that it's actually reasonable for Microsoft to drop support for Windows 10. For many products out there, you won't see manufacturers continue to make parts for older models, so they stop making the parts, warranty coverage is limited for how long the warranty will last, and if you NEED to replace a part, if it's over ten years old, you may find that finding parts may not be all that easy, depending on how many parts are out there and available for purchase. If you complain because your 10+ year old car doesn't have new parts being made by the manufacturer, then you haven't paid attention.

And when those teenagers go to work somewhere else, that's normal and not a reason to be upset, unless there is some other special attachment that Trump had to those who leave. You know there is something called guilt by association, but also, based by the relationship those have with criminals.

So, Trump and Epstein, very close for a long time, it was well documented that Trump would travel with Epstein as well, so, suddenly, Trump claims that he had no idea what Epstein was doing for all that time, and then Maxwell, she was found guilty, but Trump used his influence to get her moved to a better prison. This gives a very big indication that Trump knew EVERYTHING that Epstein and Maxwell had been doing, and then there are the files that were on the desk of Pam Bondi, until magically, there was no list, there is nothing there, and you then have people going through the Epstein files to find any mention of Trump in them.

Seriously, it LOOKS like Trump is really guilty, and is being protected by Bondi. Any attempt to hide or block the release of the documents makes Trump look even more guilty.

True, but it will stop the hardware vendors helping them. They typically have a binary blob, and maybe it has to be validated with a signature before loading. Blob itself is probably encrypted to make reverse engineering difficult.

Cellular and WiFi modems are complex DSPs. Figuring out how they work and re-writing the stack from scratch is a huge undertaking. I'm just not sure it's a realistic goal for the FSF. Their other attempts to open up less complex systems haven't exactly had stellar results.

Because being lied to is "freedom".

Seriously, I've had more than one American use this argument to defend fraudulent advertising practices. Apparently its up to the audience to determine what is true or not despite most of the audience being completely unable to do so.

This morning I read about another ad being banned for misleading information and I thought, "won't this make companies more afraid to use risky advertising techniqes" and my second thought was "good".

Yes, and it's a developing issue. But also we aren't quite at the stage where people can download an app to their phone and screw up the local cell tower. If we were, you can be sure something would be done about it.

In fact when someone found you could screw with Bluetooth quick pairing using a Flipper Zero, it was patched pretty quickly.

For hardening they are both annoying in different ways, but neither is better than the other.

For network admin, GPO and related tech is the better solution for most people. For local, Windows is usually better than arsing around with shitty config files.

Vulnerability wise it depends who is handling it. Microsoft were responsive the one time I dealt with them. On the Linux side, the developer of that component can be helpful, or not. The guy behind systemd won the "worst vendor response" award for his efforts.

Linux is just as vulnerable, and believe me I've tried it and it's not better than Windows for day-to-day use.

The issue is the modems. If the firmware can be modified, it can be made to exceed legal transmission power limits, or behave badly on the network in a way that affects other users.

The same is true of WiFi, but the damage tends to be more limited. Screwing up a cell tower can affect thousands of people.

As if that's different from any other "Sponsored Item" search results?

I really look forward to more widespread adoption of AI search in listings. I hate spending hours having to manually dig through listings to see if the product listed *actually* meets my needs or building up spreadsheets to compare feature sets. This should be automatable. We have the tech to do so now.

Before Secure Boot, rootkits were common. Back in the day I fixed a huge number of machines that were infected by malware that modified the Windows SATA/IDE driver. You couldn't remove it from inside Windows because the modified driver hid the files from AV software. You had to connect the drive to another machine, or boot a Linux live CD, remove the malware, and then do a refresh install of Windows to replace the deleted driver files.

Secure Boot put a stop to that and many similar attacks. It is a very, very worthwhile security enhancement.

Modern Thinkpads let you disable access to things such as USB boot with a password, and by all accounts it's decently well protected.

They also let you encrypt the boot drive with hardware encryption (no performance loss). Managed at the UEFI level, before the OS bootloader.

While a powerful attacker could still compromise the machine by say adding a hardware keylogger and then returning to collect your password, the reality is that unless you are up against state level adversaries that's not a realistic threat and the protections that Lenovo offers are more than adequate to protect your data even when someone has physical access.

You're still rewriting the proposals to get your figures.
It isn't 100 tons of fuel per launch, it is closer to 150 that they are figuring. Hundreds of m/s is still many tons of fuel.
10 launches, not 16.
400 tons of fuel plus 220 tons is 620T total, that is about 65% fuel, easily enough to reach the moon.
Landing with 220T would need some more, but as I said, i discounted Musk's statement.

Besides, who says we'll go to the moon with v3 instead of the 200t v4?

And with saying a year or more for 5 launches, SpaceX is expending starships faster now. There isn’t any real reason to thing that they won't have 4 or more rockets and be able to turn them around quickly to get the fuel launched rapidly. Lots of testing and development first though. I'll fully admit that.
Basically just figure that starship will have to same reuse abilities as falcon 9, roughly.

Even if electric power, water, sewer, trash pickup, and gas for indoor heating (in areas that get snow) are included in your rent, other services with recurring payments include home and mobile Internet access, renter's insurance, car insurance, and health insurance.

A lot of shows on streaming services are never released on DVD.

They still aren't reducing payload. 200 tons is intended for block 4, block 3 is 100 tons. 100 tons was the planned payloads for the starships I was looking at.
What you might be missing is that a "refueler" starship isn't necessarily restricted to just its payload capacity for fuel transfer. It could be deliberately redesigned for holding more fuel more efficiently, so when I looked it up, the plan is 8 launches. Not to mention that maybe Starship doesn't need the full 1600 tons for a moon mission. Right now, I'm seeing estimates of 8-10, though higher is possible of course. It's active development, things could change. Musk said it could be as few as four, but I tend to discount him.

Looking, it's around 6 km/s of delta-v to land on the moon from LEO. It should have right around 6 km/s when fully loaded (100 tons). So a full fuel load would be mandated. But they're also figuring on the lunar starship having some fuel on board after launch, and tanker starships being able to move ~150 tons per launch.

16 flights would be a worst case scenario.