CEOs are almost always the highest compensated in the company but at a large company like Walmart I guarantee you that the combined cost of all the employees far exceeds that of the employees. Not having a CEO (or not paying him, whatever) wouldn't really change the financial situation of a company.

Now a company where it might actually be the case that the CEO makes way more than all the employees put together is Elon Musk and Tesla's extremely ridiculous compensation package for him. His pay package is actually a large percentage of the company's budget.

That's already a law federally. CFAA.

Laugh all you want but we actually use this.

We tell our customers to "add +100GB to your virtual machine" before upgrading to the latest version of our software and they interpreted it as "add +100GB to the VM and then go in and start extending partitions" but they end up extending the wrong thing and causes headaches.

You can't reduce the root filesystem while it's mounted, so we give them this ISO and tell them exactly what to type to fix what they've done.

The 32-bit thing doesn't matter though. If you still have systems that aren't 64-bit capable then just keep using the old ISO.

It's software. Apple can just offer to help them reset their phones to get the malware off. Apple doesn't have to do any more than that under their warranty obligations. They're not going to lose millions of dollars because of idiots who have that happen to them.

At some point you have to make users responsible for their own actions. Apple can put warnings and confirmation dialogs up on the toggle that allows sideloading and force the user to confirm that they're opening their phone up to possible danger. If people still sideload malware after that warning, it's on them.

An OS that regularly experiences security vulnerabilities, will most certainly continue to have new vulnerabilities discovered, and will no longer receive security updates is in fact insecure.

I don't know where "here" is but in the United States, the government may implement "reasonable time, place, and manner" restrictions on expressions of speech. You don't have a free speech right to march up and down a residential street at 3AM with a bullhorn and I would argue that you don't have a right to make loud disruptive telephone calls in public either.

The problem is that it's resulted in many unwarranted and unfounded accusations made. Careers have been upended because of the unfounded claims towards Chinese nationals.

America likes to gloat about how we're better than everyone else and that we have all this due process and equal justice for all but this has shown it to be a farce.

I want to make it clear that you and others are using weasel language like "maybe", "we don't really know", and etc. to justify barriers to freedom of speech and anonymity and have not considered lesser impactful means of achieving harm reduction (and have totally ignored probable harms that such laws could cause) before pulling out this big hammer.

But are social ills of social media "addiction" the same as someone who is chronically drunk or a chain smoker? If I "drink" social media every day 10x a day for several years and quit, do I have permanent damage? Probably not.

The comparison isn't there. It seems to me the solution is educating parents and letting parents exercise their discretion on the use of social media in their household.

Maybe parents should be expected do their job and we shouldn't collectively punish millions of youth.

Millions of people do it everyday. Maybe you can gaslight Aussies into accepting a "papers please" Great Firewall but you won't do it to the rest of us.

3. Let parents actually you know, parent their children. The entirety of Australia's underage are not collectively wards of the state, at least I hope that's not what people think.

You should enter the Olympics with all the stretching and contorting that you are doing comparing participating in an online discussion with drinking alcohol and driving a car.

Yeah. Whatever wrongs Google may or may not be guilty of, I see no scenario (outside of some individual or non-profit with purely noble intentions putting up the $20B) where Chrome doesn't become a worse product in terms of privacy and security.

I'm open to argument but it seems that the cure here is worse than the disease they're trying to remove.

LinkedIn isn't an anonymous forum. Not sure what point you're trying to make, but I don't think it's helping your argument.