Same...but the parents love it because they're cheap and easy to replace without data migration drama, and schools love 'em because of Google Classroom and Workspace functionality that Google gives to schools for peanuts while being checkbox compliant for bad-stuff-on-the-internet policies.

I'm grateful that I grew up learning to own my data...but I can appreciate that Google really made it seamless to not-worry about it.

Because automakers stopped giving car buyers some variant of the single-DIN/double-DIN dash cutout with standardized wire colors for a wire harness, so owners could put whatever they want into the dash if they didn't like the OEM offering. Carplay/AA was the loose successor to that; users had some agency with app selection, but GM has famously torpedoed that solution. Their arguments were so bad that it was almost transparent that they did it just so they could try and get subscription revenue from customers for functions Carplay provides out of the box.

Now, you might reasonably argue that a means of returning to user-replaceable infotainment head units is basically what you were getting at with "secure mount"...but my point is that these shouldn't be mutually exclusive. A stock stereo *should* have Carplay/AA, along with a means of replacing it if the user deems fit...but i do think it's reasonable to ask for both - base trims of econobox cars include Carplay; it shouldn't require aftermarket hardware to implement, and the owner shouldn't have to be stuck with a panhandling screen if they *don't* buy an aftermarket stereo.

The BYD Shark petrol-electric hybrid with DMO AWD seems to hold up pretty well in tough Australian conditions. Ironically, it isn't actually available in China. There's no chance of it making it to the US market.

Because schools have been focused on "not-getting-sued", and to a lesser extent, "graph of standardized test scores go up and to the right", for a while now. In fairness, the outcomes we generally want - students with working-understandings of the world, life skills, problem solving, critical thinking, social awareness, self-awareness, and emotional stability - are all *very* difficult to quantify. It's even more difficult if we understand that every child has the same finish line, but different starting lines. So, we end up with the lowest-common-denominator of "effective and consistent regurgitation", which is simply the easiest thing to quantify and compare.

Well...that's because the real problem was both hard and easy to bury. Tech in the classroom works when it has a defined purpose, teacher training, tangential connections to existing curricula, and an underlying understanding of the principles the tech is intended to streamline.

Anyone who has ever seen a SmartBoard demo will attest to this - those demos are expressly designed to showcase exactly how new tech can supplement the teaching of old principles, and it looks *amazing* when the tech is shown in such a capacity. The problem is that the Smartboard salesmen can polish a 20 minute demo to a mirror shine, leaving teachers to figure out how to use the thing effectively in their classroom for six hours a day for 180 days...and it invariably ends up being used as a 'next-slide-button' for Powerpoints and an expensive projection screen for Youtube videos 95% of the time.

Tech in the classroom works well when there is an instructor expressly seeking to use it as an augment to existing lessons. Tech in the classroom stops working well when an admin signs a big check to a vendor, dumps a pile of Chromebooks and an instruction manual on a teacher's desk, and says "figure it out"...especially when it's paired with "you must use it".

Last piece of the puzzle: "it's what everyone else is doing" is a depressingly effective way to mitigate criticism and litigation.

Put it all together, and THAT's why everyone tried to do OLPC...and the backlash against it isn't necessarily stupid people sliding from "tech good" to "tech bad", so much as a group of average people - some smart, some dumb - saw the general shift of education in general, combined with sales demos and best-scenario case studies, gave it a shot, and now have their *own* data which indicates that the product being sold didn't yield the intended outcome, and responding accordingly.

This isn't a defense of the districts who pushed it, just the opposite - it's an indictment of the districts who could have avoided the whole problem before they burned millions of taxpayer dollars on a system with a fundamental flaw for which they did not adequately budget, and was obvious to any focus group of teachers and technologists who were given enough say to shoot down the proposal.

Sadly, here's basically the scoreboard:

--Google Chrome
--Microsoft Chrome (Edge)
--Apple Chrome (Safari)
--Chinese Chrome (Opera)
--Crypto Chrome (Brave/Vivaldi)
--AI Chrome (Comet)
--Firefox
--Not-Firefox-Firefox (IceWeasel, Palemoon, Waterfox, etc.)

And, while I prefer Firefox myself...the fact is that web developers hated the drudgework of having to work in anything but a browser monoculture...and Google wanted the browser to be an OS unto itself, which is why the browser has hooks into everything else - overwriting the firmware on a phone is something that Microsoft got no shortage of crap for making such a thing technically-possible with ActiveX, but when Chrome does it to update a Pixel in recovery mode, it's "innovative".

I'm guessing not a state actor. They already have enough other backdoors that Microsoft already put in for them, and plaintext is just too obvious even for them.
My bet is that this is just one more example in the already giant collection demonstrating Microsoft's utter incompetence around good engineering, robust security, and properly testing products before releasing them.

I don't think they're saying it's the only choice. They're saying that if you're using VMware to provide high-availability service with automatic hot failover, etc. then switching to IBM mainframes is cheaper than staying with VMware given Broadcom's new pricing. There are other solutions with their own pros and cons, but given mainframes' reputation for being expensive, this really says something about how much Broadcom is charging for VMware.

I don't know what the AC you replied to is referring to, but Don Ho has occasionally used the release notes (opened automatically after installing an update) and the web site to express anti-PRC opinions. I wouldn't call them "tirades", but some people apparently get very upset if software developers express opinions.

This sounds nice in theory, but for quite some time now, that hasn't panned out the way it seems like it should.

Let's use a great go-to example - the finance department. Back in the 1970's, it was mostly-manual. You might see a calculator in the back room, but the ledgers were written by hand, the credit card slips all came from a knucklebuster, and lots of people had full-time jobs doing calculations and data entry and inventory management.

*all of that* is automated away now. Scan a barcode, shipping manifest of the whole palette is entered into the inventory system for delivery. When a purchase is made, inventory is decremented, ledger is updated, credit card company updates the statement in real-time, accounting ledgers are updated, bank balances are updated, information is downloaded into Quickbooks, the Quickbooks file is sent to the accountant, tax calculations - ALL OF IT is done automatically. From the farmer's market to the Fortune 500, *nobody* is doing their accounting work by hand anymore. An accounting firm with five accountants can handle the tax returns for ten thousand businesses annually precisely because of how much is automated.

Now...*some* businesses probably repurposed their bookkeeping staff to other tasks...but the bookkeeping industry today employs a tiny fraction of the people it did in the days of our parents. Did some businesses encourage the bookkeepers to help develop their business? Sure, some did...but most simply laid off the staff and "grew" through the reduced payroll.

AI will indeed help with some gruntwork areas, and it will enable the sorts of projects that used to be done with Excel macros and Access databases...but "capacity limits" haven't been a true barrier for a while. It's been readily possible to higher programmers on a "gig economy" basis over at Upwork for decades. More and more off-the-shelf solutions exist for niche applications as SaaS or OSS on Github.

But the real disconnect is here:

You'd be hard-pressed to grab a hundred people at random, have them think of the software they use regularly (be it desktop, mobile, SaaS, or embedded), and point to a time in the past decade where their software got an update and they were HAPPY. Exceptions certainly exist - most DJ software got the ability to separate vocals and instrumentals in real-time, which was huge for the industry...but for *most* people, *most of the time*, software has gotten worse, not better, because "new features" are far more likely to be implemented to benefit the developer, not the user. Try going to a website without an adblocker now; it's a 20MB cacophony of garbage surrounding two text paragraphs for most of the internet. Adobe Acrobat does maybe three useful things more than were present in version 9 from 20 years ago, yet it's five times the size.
I *might* agree that AI can help improve the process of software development by reducing the amount of time spent on gruntwork...but the overall culture of making software user-hostile has been a cancer on the industry that long preceded the availability of Claude and ChatGPT. If AI accelerates that, then I do think there will be a gradual shift in problems - some businesses will try to DIY their own software, which brings support and liability problems back in-house that were half the joy of outsourcing, but the desire for the in-house option comes from that software being too user-hostile over time.

Chocolate making, cheese making, watch making, banking, staying out of wars, and blowing those huge horns to sell cough drops.

My kids have managed fine without social media, so the ban hasn't affected them at all. There are various services for children to socialise provided by government-affiliated groups if parents aren't involved.

Sydney has PCYC (run by the police) which operates youth centres with sport facilities and various affordable programs. Melbourne has "adventure playgrounds", weekly video game groups run by the social housing providers, free after-school soccer programs run in association with the Melbourne Victory A-League team. There's lots more, that's just a few examples.

If kids aren't socialising, it's either because they don't want to, or their parents are preventing it.

ISDN was pretty popular outside the US. In Germany in particular, it was used for payment terminals at a large proportion of businesses. In Australia, it was the most cost-effective way to connect a small PABX to the phone network (you could get an ISDN connection with 10, 20 or 30 bearer channels, depending on how many simultaneous external calls you wanted to support). In Japan, payphones had ISDN sockets so you could plug in your laptop/palmtop/whatever and check your e-mail or connect to your office network. It's been phased out now, but it used to be pretty important and widely used.

Are you sure about that? Because carriers disagree.

I miss ISDN. Only 20 years ago, all Japanese payphones still had ISDN ports. I wrote software to handle downloading updates over ISDN while cooperating with point-of-sale systems that also needed to use the ISDN lines. All these moments will be lost in time like tears in rain.

I'd argue that nukes have a stabilising effect, because it creates a very strong disincentive for a major conflict between nuclear powers. India/Pakistan without nukes would have been more likely to have an all-out war.