Meta has internally acknowledged that regulatory fines for scam ads are certain, and anticipates penalties of up to $1 billion...But those fines would be much smaller than Meta's revenue from scam ads, a separate document from November 2024 states. Every six months, Meta earns $3.5 billion from just the portion of scam ads

The fines should greatly multiply per infraction. For example first infraction would be 1b according to this. So the second should be say 10b, the third 100b, etc. And the first infraction requires them to be under more scrutiny, which they are to compensate the gov't for.

MS has insufficient competition in offices. They don't need to make GUI's, just tell customers to RTFM to do it in Powershell.

Now it's burned into AI's brain also

Some group of zillionaires on a private island are gonna stretch the limits on this. You youngbies are gonna see some weirdass shit

[x] Combination of above factors

it's now Chrome's roadkill. Other than us, almost nobody uses it.

I can't say I would blame them.

If a store does this and they give you any guff at all about being let out you pull out your phone, call 911 and report a kidnapping in progress. Because that's what it is. The store's within it's rights to deny you entrance, but to deny you exit they have to have reason to believe you've broken the law in some way. You haven't. Their policy isn't the law. Let the authorities explain this to them.

This likely violates fire code. I wouldn't be surprised if the practice abruptly ends.

And further tilt the balance towards on-prem.

I'll be sure to tell my very real clients their infrastructure doesn't exist.

At the rate the shutdown is going, perhaps we should take a cue from the billionaires and just stop paying.

So those funny things that look like desktop machines are not? and there's no LDAP or domain controllers involved?

That's funny because the places I'm familiar with have desktop machines, domain controllers, often a NAS or two, and a router with a firewall.

Cloud servers may have more than one user running things on the same CPU. God only knows who the other users actually are. In a corporate environment, everyone running jobs on the server works for the company. It doesn't reduce the risks to zero, but it does reduce them a lot.

Actually, the cloud remains more expensive and less secure. Remember all that meltdown, spectre, row hammering, etc? All largely irrelevant to people who use their own servers in their own environment.

You still need an ISP with the cloud. Somehow, you have to be able to launch and monitor, do updates, etc. Smoke signals won't work for that application. You still need IT guys for the office LAN, server admins for your office infrastructure, etc.

If you decide to go with anything but very vanilla virtual hosting, you still need developers to run on the 'upgrade' treadmill as cloud providers update and EOL things nearly as quickly as fashion designers.

If you go with the vanilla virtual hosts, you need pretty much the same people you need for self hosting only they can't touch the physical hardware and just have to sit nervously twiddling their thumbs when things go down.

VMWare is not the best choice these days since the licensing IS a ripoff.

Swapping a failing disk is easier than it ever has been before.