There is no competition, direct or indirect. Steam Link would only allow me to use my mobile device as a screen for my PC on the same local network, i.e. in the same environment where I could just sit at my PC. The only difference is that I could use my mobile device to sit in my living room or kitchen instead of at my desktop. Steam Link does not create or allow for any unique circumstances in which my likelihood of playing an iOS game decreases.

According to the article, Steam Link would have been a separate application solely for streaming games. Even if both apps were consolidated, the notion that I'd be buying games "for my phone" is still wrong, because the only way for this to work is through a PC which again only lets me use my Apple device as a remote screen within my own house. In reality, the Steam Link app was more likely intended for iPads to benefit from a larger screen and an attached keyboard. It would have been a simple convenience for existing Steam users, nothing more.

It should also be pointed out that Steam is available for purchasing and playing games directly on Mac OS.

I don't understand any of the logic here. Steam already exists as a smartphone app which allows me to access the Steam store, purchase games, and even remotely install them on my PC, so obviously the "store within a store" reasoning is already moot. Steam Link is just a thing that would let me stream the video/audio of a game playing on my PC to another device, in this case my iPhone/iPad. Arguing that Steam Link on its own somehow constitutes competing with the App Store is nonsense; I could do the same thing with any other remote desktop app, and in either case the playable library is going to be very limited by the lack of control options on a smartphone, more or less forcing me to use an external input device anyway. I am still required to be on the same local network and still have to run these games on my PC in order to stream them, so the only real function of the Steam Link app is extending my PC's display to a mobile screen.

I assume they meant to say that the source PC is running the game at 1080p, which is being scaled on the iPad.

I can't remember the last time I actually connected my iPhone via USB for anything. I'd much prefer it demand an unlock every single time it gets plugged in for data.

I hit the lottery on a local fiber-to-the-home deployment from Frontier (who took over for AT&T in Connecticut). They were so desperate to get people on my street to buy it that they sent reps door to door to let us know about it. Now I'm getting four times the speed at a lower cost than I was paying Comcast, no introductory rate or contracts, and not one spot of downtime in the two years I've had it thus far. Every time Comcast calls to try to get me to switch back and I tell them what I'm getting for what I'm paying, the reps insist I'm lying because of how good a deal it is.

I actually use OneNote across a Windows PC, a Mac, and my phone while syncing all of my notebooks to OneDrive. It has become a challenging experience over the years; the feature parity between each version is laughable to the point that anything I do away from the PC is a "draft" so I can correct the formatting later on 2016. Syncing is also terrible despite my notebooks existing in Microsoft's own ecosystem. It is a slow and unreliable process - too often does OneNote report that there were errors syncing, with no solution other than to try to close and reopen the notebook, hoping my changes aren't lost. On top of that, Notebooks exist in two different formats depending on which version of OneNote they were created with, and not every version treats them equally. When I look at my "Notebooks" directory in OneDrive, half of them are a nested subdirectory structure while others are just a .url shortcut which opens the notebook in OneNote Online, and even that isn't consistent because on some devices they'll display as a group of links to each section in the notebook while others are a .one file and there is apparently no way to convert between them, forcing me to make sure I only ever create new notebooks from 2016 so that it doesn't further degrade into the unmanageable mess it already is. God forbid I want to share my notebooks with anyone to collaborate; emailing umpteen revisions of Word docs back and forth is legitimately easier, and that's depressing.

What happens to my notebooks when features I use are no longer supported in any current version of OneNote? How does this in any way advance OneNote as a brand that people should want to use? Even the UWP version doesn't play nice with other feature-limited versions, so what's the point? What kind of marketing strategy is "Use this version - it does less and offers no advantages whatsoever" supposed to be?

It's an interesting observation. Statistics was one of the last math classes I took in college and the first to ever give me any real difficulty. Everything math-related up to that point, including calculus, was smooth sailing, yet it seemed that most of my peers who traditionally struggled even with algebra had an easier time of statistics than I did. Maybe the practice of memorizing things to punch into a calculator just to scrape by with a passing grade worked better for them while I stumbled trying to make sense of the theory (which conflicted unrelentingly with everything I thought I understood). I certainly couldn't calculate the probability of my anecdote happening as a matter of coincidence.

...we'd reach the singularity in an hour. That's right, the price of a cup of coffee is all our future robot overlords need.

Neither Alexis nor I created reddit to be a bastion of free speech, but rather as a place where open and honest discussion can happen.

Looking past the fact that those things are intrinsically connected, I can't understand why anyone is concerned about free speech on Reddit when it has yet to succeed at facilitating the "open and honest discussion" its founders apparently wanted. With its favoritist voting system turning every discussion into a popularity contest and inconsistent moderation based on feelings and biases rather than a set of unambiguous rules, Reddit has never been anything more than an echo chamber for dedicated users to be able to stifle opposing views and bully users who dare to express them.

Regardless of what content its administration decides to allow or support, or whatever policy changes they may or may not make, Reddit's users inherently oppose free speech themselves by simply using the site as intended. To suddenly rally and act like you care about free speech is unabashed hypocrisy; you should never have been using Reddit in the first place.

I've always understood that getting anyone, boys or girls, into STEM fields has been a long-standing problem. I imagine even if you had just as many female engineers as male, there would still be a shortage with subsequent demand for more. So while it's all well and good if you want to target girls specifically (and maybe they do need to be targeted differently), doing that in lieu of trying to solve the larger problem just seems like willful ignorance at best.

If Microsoft wants me to stop using IE and start using Edge, why does Skype continue to serve ads using IE? This doesn't leave me with much faith in Microsoft's "confidence" about their security.

Trying to apply the usual "do it yourself" attitude is probably why accessibility is a problem in the first place, especially since we're talking about a portion of users who legitimately can't do it for themselves. Programming for accessibility takes particular expertise and paying careful attention to the requirements I mentioned before. On top of that, if different developers and communities go off and do their own thing without striving for any real standards beyond the bare minimum requirements, it would surely be a nightmare for users who do need those features to go from one program to the next.

I certainly get that developers have limits, but putting accessibility features on the same chopping block as anything else based on user percentages is very short-sighted and the kind of cold, corporate-like response one might expect from Microsoft or Apple (ironic, then, that they readily provide those features). I'd hate to be the director who has to tell a vision-impaired user she isn't important enough or that there aren't enough of her kind to waste time and resources catering to.

However, the adoption of Linux within workplaces can certainly be constrained by, for example, ADA requirements. The lack of proper accessibility may ultimately prevent certain businesses or organizations from implementing Linux when it would otherwise be most preferable, simply because it does not satisfy their need for compliance. I'm sure you can see the potential ripple effects from that kind of restriction and how it might impact even those developers who do take accessibility needs into consideration.

Unless I'm misunderstanding this, it's what your IT department trusts by applying its own signature; Microsoft is providing its own list of "trusted" sources, but your organization would still have to whitelist them along with whatever else it wants. This should hypothetically give administrators an easy way to grant limited software installation privileges to users, making it easier to allow/disallow certain software by request. While it doesn't address deeper problems like signature spoofing, it should reduce the number of virus and malware-related tickets you'd otherwise see by giving users any degree of administrative autonomy as well as the number of software installation requests you'd have to deal with by completely restricting them. Any issues that do arise should be easier to route because of the narrowed list of potential sources, and being able to revoke that trust on the fly acts like a sort of panic button to prevent further propagation. Ultimately, users will feel like they win while IT has fewer headaches to deal with, at least in theory.