I sure like using it that way! I've told Windows users about the cube, and even shown them but AFAIK, not one of them has set their computer up that way, even though Windows lets you have multiple virtual desktops, although not as a cube. They tell me that they "just don't see the point."

Do you have any objective evidence to back up your assertion? Just because some stranger on the Internet insists that something is true, doesn't make it so. And yes, that includes my claims as well.

Indeed they are. I use the Desktop Cube with Rotate Cube and people find that very impressive. I also have Show Mouse and find it quite useful to turn on when something's happened and you can't see just where the mouse is.

...you might ask instead why we're still waiting for the Year of the Linux Desktop...

One big reason for that is that the meaning "the year of the Linux desktop" has changed. Back when the expression was coined, it meant the year when Linux was good enough for the average computer user to use it as their OS without needing regular intervention from a tech support guru just to keep it working and up to date. From my POV, that came almost a quarter of a century ago, but by that time, it had mutated to mean the year that Linux overtook Windows as a desktop OS. Will that ever happen? I can't say, but I'd think that the more MS treats their customers as a resource to be exploited he more likely it is to happen. I do know that I've migrated two middle aged women to Xubuntu at their request and they've been very happy with it ever since. I also showed a high school girl running Linux Mint what Compiz can do, and then told her how to install it. Once she knew that it was available from her software store, she was able to install it, have it run at login and configure it without asking one more question. I'd say that Linux is ready and more than ready for the average (bear) user to use as their Daily Driver and as far as market share, I'd think that the fact that its percentage of desktop use speaks for itself.

Funny, workers were quite productive on six day weeks back in the 40s and 50s when that was the norm. It wasn't until the 60s or so when regular workers started getting five day weeks, largely because of union efforts. Now, five day weeks are normal and workers feel put upon if they're asked to work six in an emergency.

which phone has that feature? I've been asking for biometrics distress features for a really, really long time.

Actually, it doesn't. Nothing in the username field has anything to do with identity. I can enter whatever I want there, or where it is an e-mail I can just enter whatever I want followed by @gmail.com once I've registered that as my e-mail account.

These are not two differen things. There's no actual difference between "username+password" and "password1+password2".

Only because passwords are such a stupid idea.

I want my biometric devices to have a distress function. Like "if I try to log in with THIS finger, lock the device, encrypt the drive, flush all secrets and require a password to unlock it".

Yeah, agreed, with one exception. EA. The EA guys are not all there, IMHO. They abandon all short term goals in pursuit of longer term goals that may not happen. You have to plan for short, medium, and long term outcomes that all align with your ethics. Bad things happen when you only focus on the long term regardless of how good your intentions.

It's their choice; they can either take a pay cut or start working at the office again. If the money means that much to them they'll come back to the office. Of course, that means that they'll be spending at least part of that money on their commute but probably not all of it. And, if they quit, that won't look good when they're interviewing for a next job along with the fact that since they quit, they aren't eligible for Unemployment.

I don't think you understood my post. I'm not saying that any companies are currently docking paychecks going to people who WFH and I'm not (exactly) saying that they should. I'm suggesting that CEOs are going to start seeing this as a way to get employees back to the office. And, although I didn't mention it before, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that some people would be willing to have their pay docked if it meant that they didn't have to commute any more.

Personally I'm waiting for some creative CEO to start using that fact to get people back to the office. Consider what would happen if your wages were restructured so that a percentage was allocated as compensation for your commute. As long as you're in the office every day, nothing changes. Yes, you can WFM, but if you do, you don't get that part of your wages for that day. Legal? Probably. Popular with the staff? Hell no! Would it get people back in the office? Some of them, probably; how many is anybody's guess.

The bubble is bursting. These days, you need about a million views per month, every month to have a career on YouTube that actually pays the bills. For one person. If someone else does the video editing for you, add their cost.

A million views equals $5k. The kids realise that as soon as they don't live at home anymore. Pretty much all big YouTubers theses days make their money from Patreon, merchandise or sponsors.

The algorithm is likely optimising not for your pleasure but for ad revenue.

I see a TON of what is essentially an entire video of product placement, thinly veiled as "10 kitchen gadgets you need to know" or "12 new must-have tech gadgets", probably because a year ago I clicked on one or two of those before realising that they're not really interesting tech news but just full-out advertisement.

It keeps doing that even after I've clicked a ton of them away as "not interested".

It also keeps recommending me old videos from my subscribed channels that I've already watched. WTF?

The algorithm is shit these days.

Revenue is a bullshit number. YT keeps its actual profits (which is the number that matters) a secret.

I should be more specific, though. I mean "dying" not in the immediate sense, that's why I said slowly and it'll be around for years to come. But the time where everyone wanted to be a YouTuber because it's easy money are over. You need over a million views per month, every month to make YouTube a viable career choice these days.

Lots of even big channels these days are largely and openly finances by Patreon or sponsors. That means that they are no longer tied to YouTube in any meaningful way. Which means the platform is now interchangeable and the moment a competitor appears with similar numbers of users, the content creators can move elsewhere.

I was there when the dot-com bubble burst (for some reason I hear that in the voice of Elrond in my head, despite it's not actually that long ago, anyway) - I saw first hand how quickly your entire business can disappear when your only leg is "I'm very popular and have lots of users". The first company I worked for went from "we're in the top three" to "we're a subsidiary of someone else and btw 90% of you can go" in a week.

Again, no.

I do realize that most advertisement these days is not a direct incentive to buy but brand marketing.

What do you think does it do to your brand imagine if your brand keeps pissing me off? My ex insisted on using YT for music over loudspeakers and to do that from her phone (no adblocker). I'm a man, but if for whatever reason I ever find it necessary to buy women's period products, I know which brand I absolutely for 100% will completely avoid.