Well yeah. I mean come on we know about IT stuff around here. If you are trying to back up vary large transnational systems two axis on the chart or granularity, and cost on the operational side, and granularity and time to restore on the recovery side. Sometimes you can mix them, ie a not vary granular operational backup, but if you are willing to put enough time an engery you can restore individual records or groups there of by say restoring a whole partition (as in database) querying the data you need and injecting it back into the transaction environment.

It does not surprise me that Microsoft can't wont do individualized account operations for just anybody from a technical perspective or from a customer service perspective in terms of customer rep time and engineering time to deal with one persons issues.

What they are charging for these services does not allow for that. The other reality of these SaaS service is cheap does not therefore translate to good individual value. As we have seen with the Sony article yesterday, IP in your account like a movie or video game title reality is its a rental for as long as they feel like it no matter how the terms sounded, and if it is data pictures, videos, personal files, you better damn well have copies elsewhere because while the causes might be different your data is just as likely to vanish one morning as it was back in 1988 when the ST506 MFM disk in your PC AT suddenly refused to read, but curiously was fine after a new low level format..

If only the vast majority of people "questioning authority" were not merely looking for a new authority.

Clinton was known for renting out the Lincoln bedroom, and stealing porcelain. He wasn't the first corrupt president, wasn't the last, and wasn't the worst.

In retrospect, Clinton wasn't the worst president, but he wasn't good. He was unfulfilled potential (his wife probably says the same), but way better than Bush or Trump. Consider:

In terms of foreign policy, when the former Soviet Union needed help, he gave them the middle finger. Multiple times. This directly led to Putin (and Bush made Putin many times worse). His China policy turned out to be awful. Giving "most favored nation" status to dictators without extracting human-rights concessions is the wrong path forward. We should reduce trade with evil countries, not increase it (in his defense, it was more difficult to predict at the time). He had a habit of ignoring problems like Kosovo until they got out of hand, then getting involved in ways that nobody understood, thus thinking he was wagging the dog. Black Hawk Down happened during his time.

In domestic politics, he quickly gave up on healthcare, and turned into a fiscal conservative. He implemented a lot of Newt's "contract with America," including deregulation which led to the Bear Sterns disaster. He gave the FBI and police too much power, which led to disasters like Waco and Ruby Ridge (no sympathy for those two groups, but it was a sign of a police force with too much power and too little competence).

After the 1993 WTC bombings performed by the nacent Al Qaeda (not yet named), Clinton failed to take the threat of terrorism seriously.

Clinton was a smart, charismatic guy with a lot of potential but failed to turn it into a great presidency.

Why would you stop a selective recount aimed at finding more votes in a specific set of counties that tended to lean toward one candidate? Hmm...

The above is a one-sided interpretation, but it's not an unreasonable one. The situation was that Florida had voted with punchcard ballots, and there were problems with a percentage of the ballots, both "overvotes", cases where more than one candidate was punched, and "undervotes", cases where no candidate was punched in a race. But it turns out that when you're talked about punched cards, "punched" is an ambiguous term. There were cases where chads (the little rectangular pieces of paper that get punched out) were left barely attached ("hanging chads") and cases where they were partially punched but still fully attached ("dimpled chads"). And everywhere in between.

Gore's team called for the targeted recount, arguing the theory that the targeted counties had more elderly populations who were more likely to have failed to fully punch their choices, resulting in "undervotes" when the scanning machines read them, i.e. the machine saw no holes for a race and decided that the ballot didn't vote for anyone. They argued that human examination of those ballots could clearly see in some cases that a position was punched and that a recount should be done to count those. The Florida State Supreme Court ordered a selective recount of the counties the Gore team thought should be recounted, to correct correctable undervotes.

Bush's team argued to SCOTUS that the selected counties were all Democrat-leaning (they were) which meant that the voters in the Republican-leaning counties that had not been selected were not receiving equal treatment under the law. The initial statewide count was done by machine, but the recount which would be more "permissive", finding votes where the machine wouldn't, was only being done in counties where the newly-found votes were more likely to be for Gore.

SCOTUS stayed the recount while they decided how to handle this, then ruled a few days later that the recount was unequal treatment, that a proper recount would need to be statewide and it would need clear rules for how to count ambiguous ballots, rather than each county defining its own rules. But by then the clock had run out anyway. The court's rationale for staying the count while they decided was that if the count proceeded counties would release updates that would likely show the vote totals shifting, which would make rejecting the recount look really corrupt if it went against Bush and if they decided that's what should be done. "Oh, the conservative court let the count go forward until they saw it wasn't going their way, then they rejected it" was worse than "The conservative court stopped the recount before it produced any results", was the theory.

You can certainly argue that these published positions by the court weren't the real reason, but they're not without merit.

In any event, as a careful, methodical, independent recount determined months later, the Gore-requested recount would still have shown Bush won. An incomplete recount which resulted in no win would have been a Bush win, because the state legislature was voting to send Bush votes for that case. An incomplete recount in which Florida failed to submit a slate would have been a Bush win, because the US House would have picked him. The only scenario in which Gore won was a statewide recount that also tried to tally "overvotes" -- having humans try to discern which of multiple punched chads was "most" punched, but no one at the time thought that would favor Gore, and it wasn't even being discussed.

Aside: "Corruption" is the wrong word. Corruption specifically refers to bribery and other compensation-related schemes (not necessarily monetary). "Partisanship" is a better word.

Not serving. Linking to from within their own code.

Indeed it does.

Yep. So all of the F-Droid-distributed apps will be associated with one account. Or maybe it'll be distributed across a handful of accounts.

For open source apps absolutely anyone can package and submit an app under their account.

You think Google is going to verify that an app was submitted by the author/developer rather than some F-Droid guy who submits all of the F-Droid apps?

You need to pay someone to fix your grammar,

They just require the code to have been submitted by a registered identity. They aren't going to check copyright ownership... and with open source apps that's rarely only one person anyway. The only risk is that if some of the F-Droid apps turn out to be malware, Google may revoke the permission of the person who submitted them to submit apps. And note that they don't insta-revoke. If it's a legitimate mistake (e.g. someone slipped some bad code in upstream), and it doesn't happen too often, it's fine. But whoever does the F-Droid submissions will want to take some care with what they submit.

That, BTW, is the actual reason for the registration requirement: Being able to block malware authors, at least to the extent of requiring them to find or create some government ID to create a new account. The way many malware authors operate, the $25 fee may actually also pose an obstacle for them.

Similar requirements on the Play store did wonders for reducing malware volume to a level where Google could stay ahead of it. Now they want to extend the same protection to the entire Android ecosystem. If you're curious how I know this: From 2014 to 2025 I was a senior member of the Android security team at Google. While I never worked on anti-malware efforts, I know the senior engineers who do and I chatted with them about stuff. The security engineers have been pushing for this change for years but it has been blocked by management because it was expected that it would generate exactly the sort of mis-perception that you have. Eventually, the engineers were able to prove their case with sufficient data that management let it happen (not without some pushback from the PR team, I expect).

It really, truly has nothing to do with killing F-Droid. No one in Google has any reason to want to kill F-Droid, and more than a few use it personally. NewPipe is a different story, though even there the Android team doesn't particularly care about it, except to the extent that the YouTube team can convince them to care.

I'm glad you can recognize that.

How would the Nazis have responded to a poll like this?

I still have no idea what these people are thinking.

If you're a fact-consumer, you should not say "Bush stole the election".

The best evidence is that the recount that SCOTUS stopped would not have changed the outcome. A different recount that wasn't being done, wouldn't have been done and probably couldn't have been done quickly enough, even if someone had asked for it, which no one did, might have changed the outcome.

For Gore to win (assuming the recount reached the same results as the NORC/media recount), all the following would have had to happen:

1. SCOTUS would have had to remand rather than stay (on Dec 9)
2. FLSC would have had to acted immediately to (a) change the recount to be statewide and (b) direct something very like the maximal standard used by the NORC/media (every other standard found a Bush win). There's no hint that anyone would have asked for either of those things.
3. FLSC would have had to rule that the recount didn't have to be completed by the legislatively-defined Dec 12th "Safe Harbor" date, which most interpreted as the hard deadline. I don't think anyone knows what the probability of that was, but FLSC's previous rulings seemed to imply they wouldn't have.
4. The very careful statewide recount would have to have been completed (including legal arguments and challenges) in at most 8 days. Realistically more like 5, since there absolutely would have been more time-eating litigation.

The most likely outcome if SCOTUS had done nothing is that the recount, if it completed fast enough, would have confirmed Bush's win.

It's also worth noting that another plausible outcome -- Florida just can't make a decision by Dec 18th and sends no electors -- would also have been a Bush win. Without Florida's 25 votes, Gore would have had the most electoral college votes, but wouldn't have had the constitutionally-required 270. In that case, the US House of Representatives would have picked. The result would almost certainly have been a purely party-line vote, 223-211 for Bush.

One final comment: 2000 did not represent some sort of "failure of democracy", and wouldn't even if SCOTUS' intervention actually had changed the outcome. When the electorate is very closely divided, the outcome is determined by random events. Chaos. If a butterfly in Peoria had flapped its wings a couple of months before it could have gone the other way.

Never mind all those DVDs from the mid 2000s that rotted on the shelf. Good luck getting anyone to replace those..

Physical media does not provide any sort of certainty you'll be able to enjoy it a decade from now and don't say "but make backups" the value proposition of making a backup as in a real redundant copy to sit on self somewhere (or hardisk ... whatever) vs for piracy just isn't there. The time plus the cost of the media does not let that make sense for something you paid less than $20 for in the first place.