Fair. MY point is that I don't trust that source because whomever/whatever wrote it made a logical error.

OK. But copied the quote from where? I can't find a source worded like that.

How is 868 a decrease from 813?

Someone was using those pictures as placeholders as they were not provided with actual camera pictures, and they either forgot to replace them or the real pictures were just added to the mix and the stock photos remained. This is why placeholders have to be explicitly marked as such or otherwise be something nobody would sign off on (I used nyan cat for such things myself).

Something

Oh, it's a good dupe. Some people are telling me it's one of the best dupes.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Please go back and look at the post I originally responded to, and read it carefully, looking at its logic.

They did. They also said IE6 was the last version of IE.

They probably couldn't go through with it. Increasing the system requirements would leave things in a weird state where you and a friend might both be running Windows 10, but yours is version locked because it's can't upgrade to the newest version as the hardware doesn't support it, while your friend can continue receiving updates. It's better to call the new version "Windows 11" to reduce confusion. Which is exactly what they did.

Furthermore, all Windows 10 users received a free upgrade to Windows 11. So it would be difficult to argue that MS' statement is at all relevant to any damage when the plaintiff already had/has a copy of Windows 11 available to them for free.

Windows 11 requires TPM and newer CPUs for security features, they want to make standard. Forcing requirements for these features also forces PC manufacturers to provide them. This makes users more secure over time as everyone upgrades or gets new PCs with Windows 11. I am sure this is what MS will argue (in part, there's a lOT of holes in this lawsuit). Plus MS has focused on security since Vista, and I am sure they will present this as another step in that process of securing their users from threats.

Yep. We all know that quote, and probably most of us agree with it.
There's a huge difference between "a little temporary Safety", though, and an absence of mass shootings.

Setting aside your "or lawsuit", would you rather have a school be the site of a mass shooting than see a child arrested?

From the description this sounds like analytics. Generally these frameworks track how users use an app and anonymize it, and aggregate all the information together. You can use this to determine how users are using the app. For example let's say you have a feature you think is super useful. But you get your analytics back and almost nobody is using it. You may decide it is not worth maintaining and drop it in favor of focusing on areas of the app people are using. Or perhaps you may determine a particular common pattern of usage indicates a screen's layout is confusing, and work to fix that.

In this case it's easy to imagine many users weren't aware this was happening in this particular app. I didn't dig into what exactly what was happening here nor what the claims were so I won't speculate further.

The problem with statements is they are disproven by "literally".