We're not going to agree, again, which is fine, but Microsoft is the digital equivalent of Epstein.

You can claim they don't take your data, and it's all carefully stated in the ToS, Licensing / Privacy Policies, but it all means nothing if they don't prove it, and they've never proved it. License terms and contracts are for fools, it's all hand waving and legal jargon to excuse themselves from wrongdoing.

If you doubt that, write your own terms, make them fair, and sensible, and ask Microsoft to sign off and grant your terms, not theirs. If your terms are reasonable, they shouldn't have a problem with that, but, they will not sign your terms, they won't consider them. Seriously, give them a set of terms that all software is required to be open-source, open-audit, free from any analytic tracking or data grab. Require Microsoft to release build keys, verification keys, and a signed source chain trust, for all code. Force them to PGP sign everything, and provide you with source level build scripts. Force them to have a full isolated, independent, third-party verifications of all systems, sub-systems, and code. When they refuse to sign, why? I can tell you why, they aren't accountable, trustable, and they're digitally molesting you to the point Epstein would ask them to calm down.

If Microsoft wanted to improve their image, they would start by stripping all the analytic nonsense from their products. They would remove services that collect, analyze and traffic your data, and they would lock down Windows into a default secure state, by enabling the Group Policies that are off by default, but shouldn't be. They would remove the online account nonsense, One Drive, Office bundles, and all of that useless waste.

You can do a lot of that yourself, but shouldn't have to, since the default state should be security first, which is absolutely not how Microsoft operates. Microsoft does not care about security, some people in Microsoft might, but the company as a whole doesn't. This is straightforward to prove, require all email communication from them to use PGP, they won't, they'll refuse, but why? Granted, just using PGP means nothing, but it's an essential first step / first stage to email, which means they can't even engage with email correctly.

Oh, and you have to strip out the Microsoft secure boot keys, and resign everything, which, if Microsoft was handling properly, it would have Windows walk you thought generating client-side keys for the secure boot chain, and doing the resigning on your computer.

I really don't care what you think I know or don't know about cyber-security, it doesn't matter in this context, I've listed very basic things that Microsoft could easily do, to instill trust. I haven't brought up Linux or Unix to any degree to make it sound great or horrible, I'm simply pointed out Windows is a terrible operating system, and it objectively is. I have said many times in the past: "Windows is not for professionals.", that statement is true today, has been true for over a decade, and doesn't look it will be proven false any time in the foreseeable future.

None of this contradicts anything I brought up, if we don't agree, we don't agree.

The first step to enable Secure Boot, is to fully wipe the Microsoft keys, and then make your own. If you're running Windows, you'd have to resign the entire chain, which admittedly I don't know how to do, since I don't run Windows. After that, you have to go through the OS and remove all analytic trackers, and other nonsense, including their Key Logger "Ink & Typing". Once that's done, you can start service stripping and apply Group Policy, which is a headache. After all the work is done, what do you have left? A destitute excuse for an operating system? At that point, just run a proper OS, which isn't Windows.

It's not a conspiracy theory that Microsoft steals your data, they admit it. They enable One Drive by default. They enable Ink & Type, along with other analytic services, all to steal your data. So, that being the case, you need to run something like VeraCrypt to key your files safe from Microsoft.

I could see that.

That's hilarious!

I also use secure boot, and self-manage the keys, since having someone else hold the keys completely mitigates the value of secure boot. It's not ideal, and it creates a minor headache, but the gains massively outweigh the extra work required. I don't run Windows, so at least that portion is mitigated by OS selection, but it still creates a headache when I have to install Microslop junk on my computer, since they expect a prebuilt key to be present.

Why doesn't Microsoft want an independent encryption program running? They need to be able to steal all your data, and feed in to their AI training, and hand it over to police. Windows is not a safe OS, Microsoft has proven that time and time again. I use VeraCrypt frequently, any sensitive file on my computer is in a VeryCrypt volume.

If sensitivity is important, you must encrypt the file away from the OS, and other people. The entire point is to keep sensitive stuff safe, and since Microsoft has some delusional belief that all your files are their files, in the wrong hands, they block VeraCrypt.

I'm pressing 'X' to doubt. What make/model of router? I'll look up an image of the box.

Why did it need a 'big yellow burst' when it would have plainly advertised itself as a 100/1000 instead of a 10/100/1000?

Well, in this case, a distinct lack of needing to compile shaders.

And consoles have been 'PCs in fancy cases' since the OG Xbox. Arguably the Dreamcast.

https://emetonline.org/resourc...

https://www.icanw.org/what_you...

https://armscontrolcenter.org/...

"No user serviceable parts inside"

Or, in simple English, repair requires skill, training, knowledge, some combination of the three, beyond that a regular and common user would possess.

It also works, in the real world, to identify some product that can not, in fact, be repaired at the component level, either due to physical reality (epoxy potted components come to mind) or the manufacturer's inability to source the required components (third-part complex parts, I could offer examples which should be obvious to anyone able to make an argument from knowledge).

Sometimes this is more a statement of reality than an attempt at obfuscation. 'cause some stuff cannot be 'fixed', and the average user would not even understand why.

Disclaimer - I fully support Right to Repair. I also acknowledge the reality that some stuff is really difficult. And in the example from TFA, We are generally talking about equipment that is not so much 'repaired' as either replaced at the subassembly level, or more likely, in the example, problem-solved in software. You want the right to repair your router's software? Or just access to it after the explicit agreement or arbitrary agreement with the manufacturer says no? As in, you paid for support during the warranty period, but after that expired, the manufacturer soon abandoned software support...? Read the EULA. Ask the State to force them to do whatever the State decided to do. Watch innovation die.

"So, let the companies retain their monopoly over repair and then regulate that repair business"

Your solution is the highest abuse of rent-seeking for the ostensible purpose of 'making things right'.

And this is how government destroys our lives, beyond even the efforts of 'those evil corporations' that are assumed to exit merely to exploit us.

Your proposal is the opposite of liberty. It substitutes the State for the Corporation. And diminishes us further with no benefit, because the State will act in its own interest. The solution is less of the State, more of the individual. Right to Repair does this better than regulating repair.

Oh, and I forgot one thing. Iran is quite proud of the amount of enriched uranium it already has, which has reached the point where it would take less than weeks, perhaps to enrich it to weapons grade. If you were paying attention, you could be confused as to why Iran has any enriched uranium that approaches weapons grade, when it's previously agreed not to do so, that it was sanctioned for doing so, and now it claims it has a right to do so in opposition to widespread agreement that it should not by other nations. By its own words. It's telling you that sanctions weren't effective and that they were ignored or subverted. You wanted evidence, listen to Iran's leadership itself if you would.

Source: Council on Foreign Relations https://share.google/QgdoNXHS0...

Iran Sanctions: Fact or Fiction | UANI https://share.google/aqXycKz6t...

Iran’s Response to Sanctions? Ignore Them | The Washington Institute https://share.google/BnGQ9tcN0...

There is more.

If you were more informed about history you would know that not only did Iran ignore the sanctions and agreements, they expelled inspectors and refused to permit follow up inspections as mandated by the agreements they signed.

And many of the dispute resolution mechanisms were subverted or diverted by the other parties involved, the UN and European nations in particular.

This is so widely known that i challenge you to provide evidence of Iran's compliance. But if you cannot, then consider they did not comply in meaningful ways.

I doubt you will. Try again.

Oh please. The enforcement mechanisms were subverted and ignored by Iran right along. They kept throwing the investigators and monitors out of the country. You could at least be serious and deal with the facts please