It really should matter. If we can just decide the text means whatever we want it to mean, what's the point in writing it down?

As clearly shown by the current hacks on the Supreme Court. "Privacy in the 9th Amendment? Never heard of it." "Limited government? What's that?"

It's not a religion, the actual meaning is more important than the specific words. Reinterpreting some line as "the government cannot collect X by paying its own agents, but it's fine to pay private sector", is corrupting the meaning of your text. If they wrote government cannot collect X, it obviously extends to all means of collecting X, not just the limitative list of what they had in mind at the moment of writing. They would not waste time to write a Constitution that has obvious loopholes. Different to a district regulation that says no wine can be sold at the local bar, and can read it as beer is ok.

The summary says "harder to intercept or jam", and the company seems to be involved in the defence market.

It also says "supporting significantly higher throughput", so maybe the limitation to Gbps is only because it's a first test.

I would think that China has that access. I know of several large corporations and one smaller state that have this access.

What a dumb statement. If you are trying to defend the indefensible (Microsoft), try at least to sound a bit plausible.

So? The Linux kernel folks patched within hours or days. And these vulnerabilities are unlikely to crop up again. You are comparing apples and oranges. Also note that building a big, bloated KISS violation of a "kernel", as Microsoft does, certainly counts as "not caring about security". The only way to get good security in software, and even more so in kernels, is by simplicity. Microsoft certainly knows that. But raking in the dollars is far more important to them.

So ask yourself: Why are you defending Microsoft with invalid arguments?

There are also other master's degrees besides the clearly negative-value MBA. For example, you can get a STEM one.

This is also the users that tolerate this crap and ask for more, at least some of them. Yes, MS has no honor, integrity, decency or skill, but they are getting away with it because they do not get called out.

And a rather large part of it is user incompetence. Not much of a surprise.

FVWM had these like 30 years ago...

"...the court could find justification to stop business in America from being allowed to steal non-profits..."

That was not even an option in this case. The result you hoped for was for Musk to win an enormous amount of money and possibly control over OpenAI, which you would then happily see as a for-profit corporation.

"I guess I was wrong."
That's not surprising, nor is your incessant dishonesty.

There was no core issue.

I like how people assume Musk would have won if not for a technicality. The case wasn't even considered by the jury because of failure to file on time. There is no reason to believe it would have faired better if not dismissed for the reason it was.

Musk is a malignant sociopath, doing damage to people is his priority. It's really bad when Peter Thiel says that about you.

It was a civil case, there was no issue of "stealing an entire non-profit worth billions". Did you have Grok write that?

The DOGE rules? If you actually cared about a single rule "American business have to operate under" you would be cheering this decision like everyone else. What we have here is two sociopathic billionaires and a douchebag cheering on one of them. Any "seemingly intelligent" person would hope both lost everything.