Yes, simple. And irrelevant. Here is what's relevant: software that doesn't change remains vulnerable forever. Because nobody is fixing any exploits that are discovered.

Wishful thinking will not protect you. Running an actively-maintained system is a better option.

To follow your logic, updates are bad because they can introduce new vulnerabilities. Never mind that the main purpose of the updates is to fix the old vulnerabilities.

Then, why not just release a software product, and not provide updates at all?

You can't make a virtue out of a "static, unchanging code base" that contains vulnerabilities, whether they are discovered or not.

Head in the sand much? You completely miss the point: it doesn't get better either. Ever. That's what happens when an OS no longer has support.

And arguably, it does get worse over time, as vulnerabilities are discovered and exploited, but not fixed.

You can manage when updates happen. Even pause them. I'm running Windows 11 right now on one of my PCs, and have paused updates until the large-file-on-SSD bug is fixed definitively.

I suppose continuing to use Windows 10 is another option, but I'm not sure it's viable -- in the sense of the OS being secure when MS drops support. Maybe it will still be secure the day after, the week after, even the month after ... but eventually it won't, and no fixes for vulnerabilities will be forthcoming.

If this person doesn't want to stop using that computer, then yes, that's a viable option.

You're acting like such computers are "suitable" for most users. I reckon they aren't.

Pfft. You said Democrats "sure don't" care about felony convictions when it comes to voting, implying Republicans do. Martin Blank then pointed out that virtually all Republican states allow felons to vote, with restrictions in some cases. And your response is "Yes, exactly"??

It's pathetic to flex like that when you have been pwned.

Nobody is saying a felon can't be allowed to be president. This discussion is not about whether being a felon disqualifies you from being president. It doesn't. The issue is whether it matters -- as in whether someone should avoid voting for a candidate who is a felon. In 2024, Republicans voted for Trump despite his felony conviction, thus demonstrating that, for them, it didn't matter.

Now, show me the list of Democrats who ran for president after a felony conviction and were elected.

Not just Democrats. Convicted felons can vote in almost every state (including Republican ones) with some conditions.

Well, as a matter of fact, a convicted felon can become president, and the current occupant of the White House is an example.

There are various disqualifications for someone to be president. A felony conviction is not one of them.

Was he a convicted felon when he purchased and registered the gun? Or did he become a felon after the copyright conviction, and just happened to own a gun at the time his premises were raided before that conviction?

Look, I'm hardly sympathetic to the guy. But depending on the answers to these questions, I think the timing of his purchase matters.

Pretty nice to get $25k tax-free every year, eh? I predict this will spread like weeds. Watch as lots of new jobs include tips in their compensation structures.

Believe me, I don't begrudge tipping people in service roles. They work hard for low wages, and deserve a boost. However, I have noticed that things are getting obnoxious. Many establishments already suggest tip amounts on the bill as percentages of the total including tax. Excuse me, but I don't tip the government.

And some of them brazenly suggest amounts that start well over 20% of the bill total. You'd have to be quite exceptional to deserve that amount on a regular basis.

I aim for 20% before tax, and rarely more.

What's broke is the administration. They're changing what is reported in order to confuse people.

Reagan increased the debt. Cutting taxes contributed to increasing it further. Do you not see that?

And BTW, the stock market is not the fiduciary measure of the economy that you seem to think it is.

And I think we can dispense with your argument, because as I have shown, it makes no sense.

I'm going to speculate few to none. The second Trump administration claims to have deported about 140,000 people. That doesn't square with a loss of 911,000 jobs.

There might be some job-loss due to undocumented workers being deported, leading to labor-costs rising, and resultant shrinkage in the job market. But 911,000 jobs? Doubtful.

It needs to be said that there are plenty of legal workers in the USA who are not citizens, but who are instead permanent residents, are on various work-eligible visas, or are refugees with temporary status. Let's not try to equate work eligibility with citizenship exclusively, h'mkay?

And my guess is that some legal US residents may fill whatever jobs the undocumented deportees had to abandon. But I doubt there'll be a rush, because many of those jobs pay poorly and US residents don't want them.

Of course. I said nothing about making old-fashioned meat illegal. I'm just saying that humanity may no longer need to survive by killing animals.

As another poster in this discussion pointed out, Texas is banning lab-grown meat regardless of where it's manufactured. A meat-growing company could locate in Texas and its products would still be banned.

It has been a long time since human-precursor hominids grabbed prey with their bare hands and ate it on the spot. If they ever did.

Humanity has found many ways to overcome nature and survive. Lab-grown meat very well might become one of them.