Totally agree with the rationale for the blocking; no sane company is going to willingly publish info that could harm them. Can't really argue with that at all; their site, their rules, and all that. What the First Amendment says about free speech is regarding the Government, not public entitiies like Meta, so they absolutely have the right to decline to provide these lawyers with an online megaphone and soapbox to stand on.

On your question though, it's quite likely no one authorized them. Assuming you're not blocking ads outright, then any ads you do see are basically the result of an in-browser bidding war to see which company is willing to pay the most (still tiny fractions of a cent) to get you to look at their ad instead of someone else's based on the info Meta has on your demographics and interests. Meta has a demonstrably loose grasp of ethics, so if you are thinking they are vetting every ad's contents before it gets accepted into the auction mill rather than just relying on companies to comply with the conditions Meta set and dealing with any that don't if any complaints get sufficient traction, then you have a radically different take on Meta than I do.

At best, they've probably just changed the Ts&Cs to put a clause in preventing ads of this type, or blacklisted the companies that were pushing them.

For our organization, we're hoping automatic cluster load-balancing will be implemented soon in Proxmox. VMware calls it "DRS" and it's a very expensive add-on.
Proxmox already has a vMotion-like migration function.

Why do we need kernel drivers for a VPN?

VeraCrypt on a company-managed platform?

That's just wrong. In that use case, it's only Microsoft BitLocker.

Did they not see "White Mile?"

Ahh, yes, it was an Ideapad.

Yeah, but what is probably the most-repaired component, the keyboard, is riveted in and the plastic rivets are melted in place.
It sucks.

Those Lenovo laptop keyboard mounts were designed by sadists.
They literally have plastic rivets that are melted in place and you need an X-ACTO knife to remove them, then kinda hope your new keyboard will stay in place with hot glue.

Of course, I meant to type "A18 Pro chips."

TIL they are using crippled A8 Pro chips with one GPU core disabled.

What a way to recover from binned chips.

Putting a MacOS-like skin over the proven UNIX-like NeXTSTEP was inevitable. There are many reasons that Copeland and Taligent/Pink failed.

Don't forget ignoring modern approaches to cancer care and dying of a mostly-curable cancer.

I hate the blurry fonts in MacOS.

I find I can do everything I need with old and OWA, and OWA is only really needed for some SP/group stuff that will probably never make it into "old". I'd switch to Thunderbird, but that's coming up short in some areas too and OWA alone won't make up the shortfall there, so my current approach is the least painful for getting stuff done, no matter how much that chafes. I find "New" to be a confusing and broken mess that is missing several key features needed to interact with other Microsoft systems (FFS!), and have fed that back to Microsoft in no uncertain terms every single time I've found myself switched to it and have immediately switched back using the feedback form they give you. No real idea on the Store version as I've only tried it once in the hope it might do everything I need (it didn't), but I hear that's awful too.

So, yeah, GP listed three products, which are the "local" versions, then there is the OWA version, so Microsoft has four totally different products that use the "Outlook" name by my count. Maybe they employed a former cola exec to lead the product development, or something; throw flavours at the wall and see what sticks? Store seems to be the "Diet" version, so maybe next up will "Cherry Outlook" and "Lime Outlook"... Personally, I really want "Outlook Zero", which will be me uninstalling it for good once I can switch to anything else.

I still don't understand why any SBC application that is not emulating classic videogames needs more than 4 GB, let alone 8 GB.