Good questions. I've used FSearch on Linux occasionaly. Nearly all my saved files are still on Windows 7.
FSearch and Everything feature excellent file searching: very fast, excellent search parameters, flexible "datebase" control.
Where Everything excels is in integration with the Windows file manager. The output from Everything is essentially another window. You can copy/move, delete and rename the files directly. Changes are seen immediately in other open windows. These abilities are very valuable to me.
(Both FSearch and Everything allow you to open the found files or their directories.)

I've been a heavy user of Microsoft Windows and its applications since MS-DOS, including Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 2000, XP, Vista and 7. They met my needs, and were required by my employer. I would still use Windows but (1) I retired and (2) MS screwed me too many times.
This began with Vista which would BSOD crash very often and for years. Windows 7 was fine but then MS decided to drop the Sidebar feature which is important for me. Microsoft also changed the Windows Updater such that my system would loop in the SVC Host program rather than update. It took a lot of homework and a few choice Windows updates to fix this. Then along came Windows 8 (and my retirement). At that point I decided to disconnect my Windows 7 system from the Internet as a data repository. Seeing what MS has done with Windows 10 and 11 adds even more strong motivation to get off Windows. (Windows 10 came preinstalled on a new laptop of mine but MS wouldn't let me shrink it to less than 50% of the SSD!) I have many more complaints about MS that won't fit here. If you are heavily invested in Windows switching will take time and effort. Many who download Linux will give up, but I found the journey to be worthwhile.
Since 2012 Linux Mint has met all my needs on 3 new computers. I use Conky to implement an excellent sidebar. The only Windows application I use heavily on Windows 7 but cannot get for Linux is "Everything". It's an amazing app, but tied to the implementation of NTFS.

Well said.

Whether a job should be done in an office or from home depends on the nature of the work, the locations of the involved workers, and many other factors. It's surprising to see how most responders here have taken an extreme position. For each job situation there are pros and cons to be considered.

In my experience, an in-person office evironment that is well run and staffed with competent professionals yields the best results (e.g., leadership products). Some of us crave that kind of project and are willing to devote all our time and effort to it. Such projects are much too scarce and hard to find.
At the other extreme end of the worker specturm are workers who just want to make money for as little time and effort as possible.

I suspect that a good deal of the emotional argument for working at home has to do with "Internet Addiction". When you are at home, your boss and co-workers can't tell how much of your work day you are spending on your personal entertainment: various social media, games, porn, ...

Such lawsuits by corporations and law firms are an immense drain on society in general. They can drag on forever too. Often, as in this case, they can't solve the problem used to justify them.

The resources would be better spent on more engineers, programmers, scientists, .. to improve the involved products.

We (the US, as well as Europe) do have a huge problem: over the past 30 years the production (research, design, manufacturing, ) for most commercial products has shifted to Asia. This includes semiconductor chips - critical building blocks for many important commercial and military products. So it is essential that we reduce our reliance on these other nations for semiconductor chips (and related electronic parts).

Providing government money to the US semiconductor producers might be required, but that must be part of an overall strategy that addresses the root causes of the continuing production shift to Asia. If all this bill does is provide cash to US companies it’s hard to see how it will solve the problem.

Here's one key cause of the production shift to China: Since the mid-90’s China has been dealing directly with individual US companies, insisting that if they want the right to sell their US products in China (a huge growing market) then the US company must do some joint product development (research, design, manufacturing, etc.) with emerging Chinese companies. The US company wants or needs the business in China so it agrees to do what China wants (e.g., create a research lab in China, open a joint a design center in China, build a manufacturing plant in China, etc.). This has been happing a lot and in the open for 30 years. I have heard from involved US workers that Chinese workers in these collaborations tell their US coworkers “we will learn from you and then do it better.” In some cases, a US company decides to outsource a strategic building block or sell a strategic business unit.

How will our nation stop or reverse the overseas transfer of know-how and production for strategic commercial products? If the problem is just a lack of funding then we are in real trouble. Remember that the US now has more that $30 trillion in national debt to other nations, including several trillions of debt to China alone. China can spend far more than we can on this stuff. $79B spent over 10 years is a trivial amount for China. We need a smart national strategy that is forward looking, invests wisely, and plays to our strengths. Maybe some kind of bi-partisan board could be established to develop the strategy and its high level implementation. Existing corporations and politicians are not well-suited for this because they are forced to be short-tern focused.

In the Spring of 1972 I was completing my EE/CS studies at MIT and took an elective course called The Limits To Growth (course 15.nnn) taught by Profs. Donella and Dennis Meadows et al. I still have their book (ISBN 0-87663-165-0, 1972) and may have my class notes hidden somewhere in my "archives". It's a very complex subject and I can't adequately summarize their book here. Let me just say that they modelled a diversity of scenarios, including some technology advances, and in all cases the continuing exponential growth in population and capital led to a catastrophic collapse during the 21st century. There didn't appear to be any realistic way to moderate the growth, avoid the collapse, and achieve an equilibrium.

What most impressed me was a guest lecture by Prof. Jay Forrester (MIT Professor, inventor of magnetic core memory, pioneer of System Dynamics, ...). His modelling methology and software was used for this research. He observed (as I recall) that the climate, being so extremely large, complex and chaotic, has "time constants that are so large that by the time you realize what you have done it is too late"!

I think he meant that we need to be very conservative about what climate impacts are deemed acceptable. Climate change is not a slow linear phenomenon that can be stopped when it becomes too painful.

It's not just a matter of the temperature and sea level rising slowly. As the atmosphere absorbs more energy we are beginning to see dramatic storms, fires, droughts, ... Extensive scientific reasearch and data exists that shows what we are doing to cause these things to happen. And it has certainly been widely communicated. Sadly, the outlook described in this course still appears to be valid. I guess its hard for people (drivers, consumers, ... even billionaires) to make near term sacrifices when they think there is no urgency.
   

A better way to improve and facilitate the scheduling of distributed conference calls is through the use of suitable tools. What app are you using to schedule calls? Does it show you the"open" time periods for the participants? Hours that are already unavailable (due to other calls, sleep time, or whatever) should be clear. It also helps to have an app that shows you at a glance where it is daylight versus night. There used to be an application called "Suntimes" that showed a world map overlayed with a shading of the Earth's current umbra (shadow, where it is night versus day). When you hovered your mouse pointer over one of the 1000+ cities, information about that city would be displayed above the map including current local time, sunrise, sunset, current weather, ... I found this to be very useful when scheduling a conference call, or even in deciding whether to call or text someone right now.

It's great to see these technologies applied to an important hard problem (herding flocks away from flight paths near airports). Speaking of flocking bird behavior, on a lighter note, consider the complexities of migrating geese: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wi...

Yes, incompatibility was an insurmountable problem for IA-64, and x86-64 was what the market needed and wanted. That said, VLIW had other issues of its own that limited its success.

VLIW emerged in the mid 90's as a potential successor to RISC aimed at improving performance per chip. It had many innovative aspects and more fully leveraged advanced compiler capabilities. Unfortunately, VLIW improved only the "infinite cache" component of uniprocessor performance, and put greater load (per useful instruction executed) upon the cache/memory hierarchy. For most workloads VLIW was focused on solving the wrong problem. It was well suited though for some technical applications.

HP and Intel embraced VLIW around 1995. It looked promising at the time. It had its technology evangelists and marketing sizzle. Then multi-core chips happened (POWER4 shipped in 2001). Multi-core has proven to be the superior path forward for increasing performance per chip. Today many cores per chip is commonplace in the x86 marketplace. It's proven to be a much more effective way of using the available circuits (and power) per chip.

Perhaps VLIW plays a valuable role somewhere today but not in the commercial server or PC space.