FTFY.
And it is not only the money, it is the time. An AI carefully educated over years may be better adjusted, but it is also a few years late to market.

Right wing media loves giving money to disabled and unemployed welfare recipients? What are your left wing media like?

I would certainly not give YOU the power to decide what can be advertised for. Putting people like you in charge is the fastest way to lose free speech. And to stifle innovation as well.

And yes, that is ad hominem. Because you seem to willfully ignore that there might be useful things in some of these carbon capture schemes. That detail they spam might be useful in combination with other ones and lead to a viable combination of technology. Schemes that are completely nonviable will fall through as soon as it comes to applying them on a large scale.

There is also the question of how much carbon you set free when operating and making the carbon capture equipment. If you don't have a net positive effect there, it is useless.
There is an interesting project elsewhere: https://news.mit.edu/2023/carbon-dioxide-out-seawater-ocean-decorbonization-0216.
That MIT project tries to simplify the capture part by extracting the CO2 from sea water, which they hope will be cheaper and more efficient than current methods.

I agree on the greener option, but it still makes Dow a bunch of liars. Enough of these little incidents add up to the point where distrust of corporations in general is deserved.
Exaggerate that a bit and you get an important ingredient of most cyberpunk novels ;-)

But is it Google's speech, if it is obviously uploaded by a user?
My immediate reaction would be to blame Joe Sixpack who posted the Nazi propaganda, not Google.

This might change though if Google had a bias in its search ranks. Hypothetically, lets say Google intentionally pushes Nazi propaganda to the top of the search results and stuff like Critical Race Theory down to page 10. Then it would be clearly Google's speech.

Now congress could make that bias illegal and Google could prove it has no bias by publishing its algorithm. That might hurt Google financially because they would no longer have superior secret search sauce, but it would be no longer a free speech issue.

That does not work like it used to any more. I try it from time to time, and I usually get at least some
      -sites where the quoted string is not present
      -sites that contain the "excluded" keyword
Now the "some" is often dozens, and at that point the feature loses a lot of its usefulness. Sometimes I want the old Altavista back, before "smart" search algorithms.

It is less about recommending "good" content, but more about cutting out the unwanted stuff. I agree this is very dangerous territory. I'd even say filtering at all is dangerous.

That goes not only for state-mandated suppressing of content, but also for YouTube and similar services filtering content that does not fit their idea of a "family friendly" environment where they can sell the most ads. The motivation is different, the result is the same.

Right now, this kind of filtering could suppress news from Ukraine that YouTube considers too shocking. Only a few days ago, a video about the reporting career of Seymour Hersh was blurred out on YouTube, the images from My Lai seemed to be too much.

It could be to some extent be done by keywords. Without even using a particular sophisticated algorithm. Your search for words like ISIS, Jihad, infidel? Chances are that you get some ISIS execution video, unless Google puts some effort into filtering these out.

Now I get surprisingly few such videos, so Google probably goes to some length to suppress them. If the details of that effort were public, it might be something that makes Google responsible without section 230.

I liked pre-censorship Slashdot where only down-modding by users was a thing (these days it is pretty obvious that some comments get simply deleted). It could be pretty rude at times, but it also had a refreshing craziness.

And pre-censorship Slashdot would not be affected by Section 230.

Windows Enterprise lets you switch off telemetry and postpone/block updates to an extent Professional does not.

As private user have only last summer demoted a PC to reserve, not fully retired it. That machine is from 2011. It still works, except for an add-in sound card that failed a few years ago (Creative Audigy).
The performance is weak but still acceptable for Office stuff. But even indie games ran into performance limits, so I wanted something more capable.

Waitamoment, wasn't that Enterprise? The version that requires a volume license and is unavailable for private users and small businesses?

Secure boot only protects against someone booting an "unauthorized" OS, which you usually have to do locally. And for protecting some DRM, I guess.
If a cyber attacker has managed to start malware on your system, secure boot has already failed its purpose.

This.
I am really unwilling to give Microsoft that much control, and them being locked out of encryption is not a bug, it's a feature ;-)
And I'm not even a "business" user with valuable secrets to protect, it just goes completely against the grain.

To answer of the Question of the submitter:
NO. I still have Windows 10 for some games that don't work on Linux, and very occasionally to run some hardware diagnosis tool where I don't have a convenient Windows alternative. Otherwise it is Xubuntu Linux here.
I don't use Outlook and Microsoft Office anyway, as Libre Office and Thunderbird are sufficient for me.