You should be smart enough to figure out that they do know better.

I'm happy to bite, Desperate Shill: Anyone remember that huge fucking wheel and landing gear at the Air Force Museum?? The engineer who that exhibit was dedicated to once asked me if I knew what kind of tires were used on Mitsubishi Zeroes. I gave Grampa a blank look. "Goodyear," he said

My sympathies on having so fee talking points to work with... that one, sadly, was dispelled twice below.

Radioing for assistance because you're *stranded at fucking sea* IS a distress call.

When I think about it, I can see a clear difference.

There were all manner of places where human eyes were accepted, but still/video cameras were not, long predating "smart glasses". From changing rooms, saunas, locker rooms, and bath houses to performances like plays and concerts, and movie theatres to executive board room meetings, and even court rooms in many cases.

There are lots of scenarios where everybody accepts and consents that other people will see/hear them, but do not accept or consent to be recorded.

  Are you really incapable of seeing the multiple clear and obvious differences between "seeing/hearing something" and "recording something" ?

If you are treating Windows devices as much like chromebooks as possible (autopilot deploy into S-mode; fairly draconian setup) you can get away with not too much IT; but at that point you really have to ask yourself why you are using Windows devices.

Most of the things you actually need windows for don't play all that well with that level of lockdown; and between chromebooks being cheap and defaulting to that level of lockdown without additional effort and the low end Apple stuff being nicer than wintel hardware that costs the same it's a bit tricky to make a strong case for running Windows systems as 'edgebooks'. You can; but it's not a super compelling option.

That's exactly why it's sort of disappointing to see him promoted away from actually doing stuff; and showing off a one of the less interesting "do Doom in a technically weird way" demos around.

Plenty of c-suite are just "meh, nothing of value was lost" when the suit fully engulfs the human; either they never seem to have done anything of interest or were popped directly out of some viscous spawning pool at McKinsey or whatever; but Russinovich was really good for nasty NT crevices work, so it seems a real shame for him to be vague CTO of cloud stuff. I don't begrudge him the money the promotion presumably involved; but going from actually interesting things to sending copilot to double booked meetings is kind of grim.

It would be interesting to know what the numbers look like in terms of schools that are actually doing something at least modestly Apple-specific vs. ones basically reusing chromebook-focused plans on Apple hardware.

Anything you hand out is going to be 'a platform' and normalize it for the students(not necessarily a point in its favor; people tend to resent the deliberate limitations of hardware that IT has been told to at least try to make less useful for porn and cheating); but there is a potential difference in versatility and vendor flexibility between people actually adopting some macOS stuff and people concluding that chromebooks have been getting more expensive at an alarming clip, without feeling any less cheap, so Apple is now genuinely competitive even if you are just going to slap managed chrome on there and reuse your existing, chromebook focused, IT and curriculum stuff.

I suspect that Microsoft, not unreasonably, thinks that the value of their AI slop will be enhanced if they can use an existing property to get people to classify particularly grating AI slop so that they can tune their copilot-related stuff to produce less grating or less obvious slop in the future.

Maybe someone in the org actually cares about linkedin's reputation as a hellscape for aura-farming lunatics; but I'd be shocked if the incentive that MS is actually motivated by is anything but the chance to get a dataset of text ranked by how unpleasantly bot-like it is to try to make their bots less visible.

Looks like Microsoft is trying to convince people to classify more and less distasteful bot slop for them so they can tune copilot outputs in the future.

The winning move is not to play.

Nevermind that - how dumb do you have to be to assume emotions were even involved??

Once the supply of customers flush enough to buy under more standard arrangements is saturated you are basically left between ignoring the demand for growth forever or deciding between handling...subprime...customers yourself or keeping the arrangement at arm's length.

This 'restricted mode' that Apple is vigorously denying will be used for lease enforcement suggests that the metaphorical arm is not that long and that Apple seems to be doing more than merely being willing to sell devices to whatever resellers; but it's not a huge surprise that they'd want the risk related to the debt and any shaking down handled by someone who isn't them.

It's entirely possible that they didn't actually care that much. It seems at least as plausible that the sort of people who would risk this sort of legal exposure over a non-issue were more motivated by an excuse to throw weight around and talk like a mob boss than actual concern. Nice to be able to put a hobby project on the company card.

But the individual didn't destroy it. The agent did the physical act of destroying it.

Suppose you were at the border with your phone, and the agent confiscated it.
Then the agent had said, how do i get into this phone?
You said, "put it in a blender".
If the agent puts it in the blender, the agent destroyed it, not you.

Now clearly, one would expect the agent to know that putting it in a blender would destroy it.

And equally clearly the inference here is that the agent did not know that the password he was given would wipe the phone as part of opening it. But isn't the onus still on the officer?

If it had been a physical safe, and you gave him the code, but the safe contained something that would self-destruct in exposure to air, and must be opened inside an enclosure with inert gas to get at the contents... who would be responsible for destroying the evidence inside the safe?

As a second scenario, what if you had printed a PIN password on a piece of paper and included that in your wallet. If the agent had confiscated your wallet and discovered the paper; and then used that password on your phone? If that was your duress password, who is responsible for destroying evidence in that case?

Legally, Isn't the onus ultimately still on the agent to apply caution before pushing buttons on a device they confiscated?

To blame you the suspect for destroying evidence on something the agent had custody and full physical control over seems a bit far fetched to me.

Not even willing to put in the time/effort to fabricate credible lies... lemme guess: lots of "participation trophies."