I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how a program can be critical to your daily workflow but not worthy remembering the name of.

You're not the first person I've heard with this complaint on /., which I find richly ironic, given the large number of people here who are comfortable with both Linux and its various shells. Tell me, if you're working from a terminal, how effective can you be without knowing the name of the program you need to execute? Oh gosh, what was that text editor called? Something with an 'e', if only I had a menu to help me get there....

You don't need a 1590 on the SAT if your parents went to the school and continued writing checks after they graduated. :-)

You should look up the phrase "legacy admission" before you casually dismiss my point by taking a cheap shot at reading comprehension.

I'll concede you said nothing to confirm that you were yourself such an admission, however, flaunting your privilege of having enough money to pay for an Ivy League education out of pocket certainly confirms that you entered life more economically advantaged than most. I suppose you could have been both born rich and smart, however, it seems far more likely that you're a nepo baby that had everything -- including Ivy League admission -- handed to him on a silver platter.

I doubt you're stupid. I just don't think you're as smart as you think you are. If you were, you'd have a bit more self-awareness.

Have a good day, Anonymous Coward. :-)

Meta can give up the metadata (pun intended) of who you're speaking with, which is often enough for legal/govt purposes, but they cannot give up the content of the messages.

The biggest problem with WhatsApp -- if you aren't a tinfoil hat wearing paranoid -- isn't Big Brother. It's Big Data. WhatsApp will happily ingest your contact list, photos, location, and all manner of other sensitive information, after which Meta will happily use said data to sell you ads. Nothing stops Signal from doing the same, or Apple for that matter with iMessage, but neither of those two outfits are ADVERTISING companies. Meta absolutely is and its CEO is on record laughing at you for giving him all of your information.

Regarding Big Brother, end to end encryption is a false sense of security if you're worried about him. Go read the 1/6 indictments and court transcripts and see how many allegedly secure Signal chats got entered into evidence. If you're using an E2EE platform to plan a criminal conspiracy, I hope you realize it's only as secure as the weakest person in the group, the one who will happily rat out the rest of you in hopes of a better deal. If you're using it for something more mundane, like cheating on your spouse, well, the civil system has a much lower standard of evidence than the criminal and it's going to reflect really badly on you if you don't surrender the messages during discovery.

You know the idea behind every version of Windows since 7, every version of MacOS since Spotlight was introduced (circa 2005) and every halfway decent Linux distribution is that you SEARCH for things rather than navigate menus, right? Click the start menu and start typing what you want. The vast majority of the time Windows will get you there before you've finished typing the entire word.

Out of all the complaints -- many legitimate -- about changes to Windows over the years, this is by far the lamest. It's like beaming up to the Starship Enterprise and bitching that SOP is to tell the computer to navigate to Earth at Warp 6 rather than entering the precise coordinates into a keypad, followed by the precise fuel intermix ratio to achieve the desired speed, blah, blah, blah, all because you're unwilling to take the few days required to retrain your muscle memory to do things differently.

No it's not. And you know it's not, because you correctly identity the broken asylum system as the problem, and those people aren't sneaking across an undefended border. They're SEEKING OUT Border Patrol officers so they can make their asylum claim.

The law entitles you to a HEARING the moment you ask for asylum. Until that hearing occurs you are legally entitled to remain in the country. Why aren't you mad at the politicians that starved the system of resources instead of the desperate migrants who are simply exploiting the world's most obvious loophole? It shouldn't take YEARS for an asylum claim to be adjudicated, but it does, and that's a problem we could fix if one of the two major political parties cared as much about the issue as they claim.

This problem could be solved by the simple expedient of hiring more immigration and administrative law judges. One of the aforementioned two parties won't go for it. Old school members of the party in question are reflexively hostile to any perceived expansion of government and secretly like illegal immigration because it exerts downward pressure on wages. Newer more populist members of the party are part of a Cult of Personality that has cynically decided it's more politically advantageous to have a broken system to rail against than it is to actually fix said system.

It was less than a year ago that KB5026372 was breaking VPN connections; and now they've broken them again?

I haven't had any problems with windows since I applied those stickers that keep the birds from slamming into them.

If MS straps just one more JATO to that pig, they'll have to hold a BBQ in the parking lot.

Reinforcing the aristocratic nepotism of the Ivy Leagues is not how you go about getting people to feel sympathy for them or their alumni.

Then I repeat my statement that current law already allows Google to bring in the exceptionally gifted, just as Corning was able to bring in my friend, so what's the problem? If there is a person who is genuinely in the top 0.1% of a given field, you can get them into this country, under existing law, and if they're truly that good at what they do you aren't going to be able to abuse them as H-1Bs are commonly abused.

I'm sorry, I just zero faith in the tech industry as a whole and Google in particular. They're crying wolf about AI. Wake me up if there's a Sputnik moment in AI, which there won't be, because we already lead the damn world in it. They can already bring in that 0.1% top tier talent. Again, what's the problem?

If I'm reading between the lines of your posts, you're a nepo baby, "I prefer not to pay in cash, for instance, because I expect the investments I would have otherwise liquidated will maintain their historic rates of return over the next 30 years, essentially making that education free." How many people do you suppose enter undergrad age with enough assets to pay for an Ivy League education, up front, confronted with that oh-so-horrible dilemma of whether to liquidate assets or assume debt? For the vast majority of people, it's a false choice, "assume debt" is the only option in the multiple choice list.

Not sure where you're getting the idea from that an Ivy League education equals money being shoveled at you. All of the people I know with jobs that get money "shoveled" their way are working 60, 70, 80+ hours for the privilege, which may appeal to some, but a lot of people would rather not do that. An Ivy League degree may get you a better first job than a peer with a degree from a State University, but that first job won't be one with any sort of work life balance, not if your objective is to have money "shoveled" at you.

FWIW, I have no "axe" to grind here, at least not agains the Ivys. I'm a happy high school graduate making six figures. To the extent I have an "axe" to grind, it's that my circumstances were largely a fluke of timing, and someone entering my vocation today without a college degree has virtually no chance of replicating my success. We've built a society that largely throws to the wolves the vast majority of the populace (60+%) who do not have any sort of degree. That's a far bigger societal problem than whether the Ivy Leagues represent a good bargain over significantly cheaper State University systems.

Sure it is. And before that it was about cybersecurity talent. Before that it was about development talent. Before that it was about networking talent.

The only consistent theme here is there's never enough on-shore talent, so we need to bring in more off-shore talent, and surely their willingness to work for lower wages AND have their permission to be in the country dependent on the whims of their employer has nothing to do with it?

I've known exactly ONE person that qualified as exceptionally gifted in my career who came into this country. She worked for Corning and helped develop Gorilla Glass. She came here from Finland, not India, and if Corning had abused her the way the tech industry abuses H-1Bs she'd simply have gone back home to her highly developed country with a better social safety net than ours. The law already allows corporations to bring in such exceptionally gifted people to fill roles like that, roles you can't fill with an off-the-shelf job posting and education. So what's Google bitching about?

Oh, that's right, they're laying off thousands of people despite being massively profitable while simultaneously whining that the labor market isn't meeting their needs.

This is all about screwing over labor. Nothing more, nothing less. I'll support making it easier for Google to do this if the law loosening the restrictions they believe are problematic also creates a new class of visa that isn't tied to employment, with the original sponsoring employer compelled to pay 100% of all public services consumed by the immigrant for 10 years after arrival, and the finalization/upholding of the recent rule prohibiting the enforcement of non-compete clauses. So sure, sponsor that immigrant, but you don't get to hold them hostage, they can move about the labor force as any American could, and if they end up on public services YOU get to pay the cost.

Mandate a system like that and watch how fast Google and ilk discover the vast majority of talent they need is available on-shore.

... I have no fond memory of that. It was slow and clumsy. Luckily, I tried poking some machine code instructions into the C64 memory soon thereafter, manually calculated from instruction code tables in a 6502 assembler handbook, then started with "sys". That was an eye-opening experience, causing me to get some simple assembler, and soon I wrote 100% of my software in assembler - for many years. I never missed BASIC.

Nobody claimed it was $0. Many have claimed it's a bad deal compared to the cost of a significantly cheaper public university education. A car analogy would be between a Honda Civic and a Mercedes S-Class. Either one will get you to work and back, efficiently and safely, but one of them costs 1/6 to 1/5 what the other does.