You've also described a key. Would law enforcement be able to take your keys and search your house, car, attaché case, etc. without the proper warrant?

Because the situation posits a question about human responsibility regarding ever evolving technology. Simply: is it possible for a piece of equipment (a car for example) to be "too awesome" for someone? If so, who makes that call and who enforces it?

Pushing the boundaries of tech is fine and dandy. Hell, it's necessary. But what limits should be placed on the dissemination of cutting edge tech, if any?

If tesla continues along its current trajectory, how much longer before the twitch of an errant sneeze can accelerate you to dangerous speeds? What about when other car makers catch up, and every Ford Focus or Geo Metro is capable of current tesla speeds and acceleration?

While this particular incident might be fairly open and shut (drunk driver) what happens when the driver is just ... bad? There are millions of mediocre drivers out there who simply can't safely handle top-echelon vehicles, drunk or not. Does the engineering company (in this instance, tesla, but certainly not limited to them) bear any responsibility in ensuring that idiots don't kill people with tech beyond their capabilities?

I wonder how much modern tech plays into this.

In years past, if you took a job in the next city over, you moved. These days, more jobs have options to work from home, wherever that is.

I do love me some Nerdist Podcast. It's genuinely interesting to hear these celebrities carry on a fairly normal conversation. No audience (at the time of recording), no major plugs (though they might mention upcoming work), just a couple people talking about life. It gets weird though, when you find out that some beloved actor simply cannot carry on a normal conversation. Gary Oldman was one that caught me a bit off guard. It wasn't terrible, just felt kinda awkward and "meh." Meanwhile, others can far surpass expectations: Melissa Rauch was absolutely hilarious.

Cite a source.

When was the last time that anyone (lefty or otherwise) posted some else's personally identifiable information on Reddit without repercussion?

The last time this issue really came up was during the Boston bombing, which was the impetus for reddits absolute zero-tolerance policy.

No there isn't.

Reddit isn't the law. If you have information regarding a crime or criminal, report it to law enforcement. Do not post it publicly on a forum that explicitly bans doing so.

Grey market.

It's not about what one person might do. It's about unscrupulous retailers buying a bunch of cards with bundled games, and reselling them separately.

Whether or not you feel the person deserved it is irrelevant.

Posting personally identifiably information about some else is prohibited by Reddit. You don't get to say "it doesn't count" just because you don't like the person.

The groups were banned for doxxing political opponents. That is, sharing personal information (name, phone number, home address, etc.) This behaviour is explicitly against the Reddit terms of service.

The political leanings of the groups are unrelated to the ban (unless you assume a correlation between "alt-right" mentality and disregard for the established rules of a privately owned website)

The super minority still provides money.

My options are: buying win10 Ent. LTSB, or buying nothing (sticking with Win7). It seems like MS should be willing to sell, even if only 1% of 1% of MS users agree with me, that's a lot of sales they're missing out on.

It's not a wholly new version of windows, it doesn't take any new coding or testing (beyond a slight change to the licensing scheme). They can just take what they already have, sell it to me, and make that money. Or don't.

Agreed

To me, the options are either purchase a copy of Win10 Enterprise LTSB, or stick with Windows 7 until the wheels fall off.

The only question that remains is whether or now MS is willing to sell the version I want (on a non-enterprise scale)

Doesn't matter. If they advertise speeds up to X, they should only provide equipment capable of X.

Yeah, but "up to" implies that the possibility exists, even if you'll never actually see it.

An old DOCISS 2.0 modem has a hard cap of 38 Mbps down, 27 Mbps up. That's simply the spec. Giving someone that modem and promising speeds "up to 100 Mbit/s" is flatly incorrect and false advertising.

Or, to take things to their hyperbolic ends, imaging promoting a 56k dialup service with "speeds up to 10 Gbit/s." All the semantic loopholes wouldn't let that fly.

Because Apple did it the smart way. They started small and worked up from there. No one was REALLY bothered by software limitation on a phone. It's just a phone (at least back in the iPhone 1 days), and there are alternatives that are available if it really bothers you. Then they moved up to the pads, which were basically just bigger phones, so yeah, I suppose that's OK, too.

Plus, Apple has been software restrictive from day 1, so it's not really a bit surprise that their next device is a bit more restrictive

Microsoft fails on both counts. They don't have a (successful) phone line to get people acclimated to the "app store" mentality, and their desktop OS has been the Wild West for decades. Got an exe? Fire it up! Recent versions of Windows might bitch about the installer being unsigned or whatever, but it'll still run. From games, to Libre/Open office, to virtual desktop dancer girls... any random jackhole could compile a program to run in windows.

To try and pull a hard 180 will not sit well with people. Even if it doesn't come to pass, even hinting at that direction will raise ire. It's worsened by the fact that it very much feel like MS is trying to use their near-monopoly on game-playing computers to ram their app store down our throats. No one likes it?? Well, too bad. MS will MAKE you like it.