I'm sticking with stone knives and bear skins.

We can bust on Microsoft all day and all night, and they deserve it, but the fact that their ability to find and fix these problems has greatly increased is a good thing. Software is incredibly complex, and no software more complicated than "10 GOTO 10" is free from the potential of security problems. Microsoft's QA has gone downhill in recent years, but now it's getting better apparently (even if it's after the fact). They are not going away, so this makes all our lives better.

I wrote a file searching utility in C++ about 30 years ago. About 15 years ago I ported it to Python and found it to be faster than using the Windows directory enumeration APIs, and I've been using that ever since. It just searches filenames, but that's all I need.

"NOTE: Experiences vary by region." says to me that Microsoft doesn't even know what their changes will do.

Can they factor a number larger than 21 with QC yet?

Perhaps they could take a clue from software from 40+ years ago and make top-posting a configurable option.

But Microsoft has pretty much completely given up on making their software configurable for user preferences.

Hey, I resemble that remark.

"Dr. Sam Becket never returned home."

You forgot to misspell his name.

Not if they keep spending 10 figures a year trying to make VR happen.

How long can Meta survive without shipping a product people actually want?

"Please protect us from child-harm lawsuits since child harm is pretty much our business model."

AUR is not an official repository for Arch distributions. It requires extra tooling; you can't install from the AUR in pacman, and AUR has historically been a risk for breakages with the official updates. It's always been a known risk, and in the age of AI malware, it will have to be adapted or removed.

There's nothing wrong with the actively maintained Arch distributions. These are the same pains every distribution has to deal with presently.

This is very important. There's a light-year of difference among a typical scholarly article, a physics paper, a math paper, or some kind of incomprehensible humanities bafflegab that no sane person could comprehend. The former, if it's not too technical, should be readable to the average undergrad. The second and third might not be because there are so many specialized concepts and so much specialized language. The latter (and I'm not indicting everything coming out of the humanities, but a lot of it) is incomprehensible because it literally doesn't make sense.

Did they take into account that most countries drive on the right? If you're walking the perimeter of a room counterclockwise, it might be because you are staying on the right.