True, although if someone was stupid enough to do such a thing, because people are dumb, me included, tracking the device should have been easy.

Yep, and I understand why they turned around, but it shouldn't have been hard to determine the root cause of the issue.

Do I think planes should have radio sniffing equipment? Yes, absolutely. The idiotic name of the speaker, and the passenger dumb enough to take it on board, are guilty, that's without argument. However, that being true, it's not difficult to figure out what's broadcasting, and all the annoyance could have been avoided, and that's really a bigger issue.

If you can't, fair enough, I didn't know that.

The name is irrelevant, granted, no one should call a BT device "BOMB" on an airplane. You can capture the packets, and determine what the device is, which would quickly resolve the concern. The real issue, as I see it, why didn't they do that before overreacting? They could have determined the BT device, found where it is, and determined why it was called "BOMB", then deal with it.

In 2026, are planes not equipped to determine wireless devices? It would seem nearly essential to capture the air traffic in the plane, if an accident was to happen, shouldn't you know what was going on in terms of possible radio frequency interference?

"the pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs."

This, we only need to settle on what profits are justifiable. And ignore the 'systematically', I doubt it much matters how the jobs are 'sacrificed'. In fact, delete 'sacrificed', 'eliminate' so do just fine here.

Technology has repeatedly changed the workforce, with winners and losers.

What insignificant and unpopular lack of substance is there in this batch of UFO file releases that requires an instantaneous TDS response?

See, when you're cranky and upset, or complaining about anything, Blame Trump.

Not very inventive, but the Left hasn't invented anything helpful for a while...

Yes, but only for the young'uns who didn't live through big tech layoffs in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, or 2010s.

I frequently get emails from Microsoft that I refuse to interact with, simply because they look like they're from a scammer. I've had our CSM call me, and ask why I didn't accept the link in an email from Microsoft. When I showed him the email, he rolled his eyes, agreed it look insane, and didn't blame me for ignoring it. He reset the email to me on that call, and it looked just as scammy and scummy as the original. I had him include a security researcher from Azure on the call, who assured me up and down the email was legit, and still opened it in a VM.

Since Microsoft sends junk emails, attackers know they can just follow the Microsoft playbook. Whose going to question an email from someone impersonating Microsoft, when Microsoft does a terrible job impersonating Microsoft? Every single cybersecurity 101 style course, from the most lacklustre, quick generated, reused, out of date training module, will tell you to never click anything in an email Microsoft would send you?

Email is a terrible method of communication without leveraging PGP, or another verification protocol.

Echos of the 'multimedia franchise' days when part of the plot was in the video game, part was in the comic books, part was in the companion app that was delisted two years later.....

Fair enough :)

I don't think we're going to agree, which is fine. I just can't stand useless data hoarding. When I was saying junk, I mean useless emails, I gave some examples in another response, and I've been told by lawyers to stop collecting junk. If your company has a policy to keep everything, fine, but, to me, that wasteful and lazy.

I really don't think it takes that much effort to determine useful from useless, an email to change core spec's from a system, useful. An email informing me you're going to email me later, useless.

How hard would it really be to allow Plasma, Gnome, XFCE, Budgie, or other desktops to run on top of Windows? With all of Microsoft's resources, and engineering skill, including unlimited capital, why not just allow the user to pick the desktop that fits their needs and use cases? Give the user a choice between KDE or DWM (I think that's what the Windows desktop is called), and watch the usability skyrocket.

There probably or almost certainly would be some licensing complexity / issues to work out, but that is legals job. If Microsoft wants to support users, support them, and let them pick how they want their system to be used, and interfaced with. One thing is certain, Microsoft is terrible at deciding for the user.

That's hilarious, I still have the IIS vs Apache (or Nginx, lightHTTP, etc...) discussion with people. To be fair, I don't know if there is a use case where IIS is the best solution, there could be, but in at least 15-years, I haven't run into it, or heard about it.

Certainly suitable, just why GitHub? Maybe GitHub has a government offering, I don't know, but it sounds weird to me to use GitHub for a government security contractor.