Anyone that plays starcraft or similar, or that plays a healer in any MMORPG, should have NO trouble juggling planes.

the OP is referring to the "please call us back at xyz", not the caller-id. Faking the callback number would mean nobody would be able to call you back. And then what's the point of leaving a callback number?

Anyone that calls a scammer back is their golden ticket, they've already bought into the scam. They'll never give you a fake number to call back.

or I'm taking my ball and going home!

This is why we have bad laws and sweetheart deals on the books, politicians cave to these stunts way too often.

I hope CA stands their ground. The jobs they're threatening to leave with will be worth a lot less anyway if CA caves and the jobs stay. That's the whole reason they're being sued.

I don't understand why they aren't legally required to keep police officers as a link in the process?

For example, if a flock camera says a stolen vehicle was spotted, it should forward that image to an actual officer that LOOKS at the image, that's given some options that INCLUDE "image quality too low for reliable identification".

And then the officer is REQUIRED to verify the validity of the warrant, and sign-off on both the identification and the warrant before action is taken. Make an officer take responsibility before sending cars after them.

Then if the plate was read wrong, or the warrant had been withdrawn or was expired somehow, they can't just waive their hand and say "too bad you got arrested at gunpoint, the camera told us to do it, it's not our fault, you'll have to try to sue the camera."

Forcing a person to make the final determination and take responsibility for the response just seems like common sense?

But I suppose it's just too easy and convenient to sit around and wait for a camera to "hit" on a car and then charge blindly at it, if you know you can just waive responsibility if something goes wrong.

Flatpak, Snap and containers in general need lots of drive space. Good thing storage is cheap these days OH WAIT

If you are treating Windows devices as much like chromebooks as possible (autopilot deploy into S-mode; fairly draconian setup) you can get away with not too much IT; but at that point you really have to ask yourself why you are using Windows devices.

Most of the things you actually need windows for don't play all that well with that level of lockdown; and between chromebooks being cheap and defaulting to that level of lockdown without additional effort and the low end Apple stuff being nicer than wintel hardware that costs the same it's a bit tricky to make a strong case for running Windows systems as 'edgebooks'. You can; but it's not a super compelling option.

That's exactly why it's sort of disappointing to see him promoted away from actually doing stuff; and showing off a one of the less interesting "do Doom in a technically weird way" demos around.

Plenty of c-suite are just "meh, nothing of value was lost" when the suit fully engulfs the human; either they never seem to have done anything of interest or were popped directly out of some viscous spawning pool at McKinsey or whatever; but Russinovich was really good for nasty NT crevices work, so it seems a real shame for him to be vague CTO of cloud stuff. I don't begrudge him the money the promotion presumably involved; but going from actually interesting things to sending copilot to double booked meetings is kind of grim.

It would be interesting to know what the numbers look like in terms of schools that are actually doing something at least modestly Apple-specific vs. ones basically reusing chromebook-focused plans on Apple hardware.

Anything you hand out is going to be 'a platform' and normalize it for the students(not necessarily a point in its favor; people tend to resent the deliberate limitations of hardware that IT has been told to at least try to make less useful for porn and cheating); but there is a potential difference in versatility and vendor flexibility between people actually adopting some macOS stuff and people concluding that chromebooks have been getting more expensive at an alarming clip, without feeling any less cheap, so Apple is now genuinely competitive even if you are just going to slap managed chrome on there and reuse your existing, chromebook focused, IT and curriculum stuff.

The used-game market isn't nearly as important to new gamers as it is to older gamers. They're used to change, and for the majority of ALL gamers, it's not a big deal.

This decision was almost certainly backed by market studies and accounting projections. They realize there will be "resistance", but like the Borg, resistance is futile. There won't be enough of it to get anywhere NEAR break-even with the revenue increase this move is going to create.

In the end, it's all about the Benjamines. They're confident that when the dust settles, it's going to be a net-positive for their stock price. And at the end of the day, that's all that matters to them.

We need some new laws on the books though, enshrining strong consumer protection for digital assets.

oh no! AI is coming for my click-bait articles!

It's just another pebble on the "AI is good" side of the scale if you ask me.

I suspect that Microsoft, not unreasonably, thinks that the value of their AI slop will be enhanced if they can use an existing property to get people to classify particularly grating AI slop so that they can tune their copilot-related stuff to produce less grating or less obvious slop in the future.

Maybe someone in the org actually cares about linkedin's reputation as a hellscape for aura-farming lunatics; but I'd be shocked if the incentive that MS is actually motivated by is anything but the chance to get a dataset of text ranked by how unpleasantly bot-like it is to try to make their bots less visible.

Looks like Microsoft is trying to convince people to classify more and less distasteful bot slop for them so they can tune copilot outputs in the future.

The winning move is not to play.

Wikipedia has some great examples of what happens when someone that's been promised "points" (a share of the net profit) on a movie has enough money to sue the studios that try to rip them off.

They scurry under the fridge like cockroaches and settle for big amounts to avoid having their accounting practices further scrutinized. I don't see why they're so afraid of it, everyone knows they do it.

My expectation is that the mechanism that puts an end to it will be the IRS or similar. Like Al Capone learned, the government lets powerful people steal from the powerless, but it doesn't tolerate it when you steal from the tax man.

Because they're the most powerful and easy to use, and likely only, data manipulation tool a person with no hint of computing-specific education is likely to run across.

Sounds similar to the practice of "hazing" new pledges at college fraternities. Too many times the frat organizations kept saying "it's not our fault, we didn't know, they were acting independently!". Finally campuses basically said the buck stops with the org, it's such a common problem you can't turn a blind eye and say you didn't know it was going on. It's your responsibility to be actively LOOKING for it and making sure it doesn't happen. And if it still happens, you'll be held partly responsible.

Funny how the (severe/dangerous) hazing suddenly stopped after that. Hold the managers responsible for what goes on during their watch and suddenly they start doing their jobs.