git is a tiny fraction of what's needed to replace OneDrive - unsurprising given it's a source code version control/management system. If you were to start from scratch creating a OneDrive alternative, you'd probably start with Apache, not git. Add versioning and more advanced permissions to Apache's WebDAV implementation, a web interface to the same directory (preferably linked to something capable of at least viewing Word etc documents online), and client tools to sync with Apache, and you're pretty close to being there.
I was checking price on an Uber and installed the app for the first time. I ended up using a regular car service because the price differential wasn't enough to overcome the "who knows who is coming to pick me up" issue. So now my phone is fingerprinted, great.
I would love to hear the explanation of how a general purpose language would protect you against attacks like that, clearly called out in the article.
You're doing the snowflake thing, blaming everyone else for the coders' incompetence and unsuitability for the job. Some dweeb wrote a tutorial and because it's not ready to be cut and pasted into production code, that's the tutorial writer's fault.
NB: Not everyone can code.
He then saw talent in me and bought me a Turbo Pascal book (in my mother tongue... English would not have worked at that age) and a copy of Turbo Pascal (I presume from work, but... I don't know where exactly he got it from).
This is about Microsoft's non-subscription version of Office being able to access the corporate version of OneDrive, so LibreOffice won't help here.
It'd be interesting to see the FOSS community come up with an equivalent to OneDrive (if we could somehow do it without needing a central server, that'd be a major step forward) but a FOSS office suite isn't going to help.
Those will still work with the business version of OneDrive after 2020? Or did you misunderstand the summary and think Microsoft is deactivating Office 2016 in 2020 completely?
What Microsoft is announcing is relatively obscure and probably won't affect many people at all. Home users will be completely unaffected. Businesses are largely moving over to Office 365 anyway, the combination of "Corporate OneDrive + non-subscription Office" is pretty unusual.
Switching over to the Mac (or, more easily, to LibreOffice/OpenOffice) won't help in the slightest.
When you decide to express your personal brilliance to the developer, take the time to word it in such a way that it doesn't come across as condescending or undermining.
He's not expressing it to the developer, he's expressing it in a posting to the Internet. I.e., to everyone. That's how people who aren't the developer are telling him it isn't a change they want.
Censorship is blocking speech.
True, meaningful censorship requires some official prohibition, not simply a limitation on what is said by the speaker or the owner of the medium being used to speak. Otherwise, "censorship" occurs every minute of every day in every medium, and the definition you are using is absolutely worthless for anything other than emotional impact. "Censorship bad" is a wonderful meme, but only if you limit the use of "censorship" to actually represent something bad.
I understand why you want to use the term that way, but when using your definition my only response to concerns that changing the ownership limits on broadcast media will create censorship opportunities is "so what"? The local TV station has no legal requirement to distribute your words, therefore they can already "censor" you, but only when you try to claim that every limitation on your speech in any medium is "censorship". Changing the ownership limits doesn't change anything. Censorship becomes bad when it is some official telling your local TV station that your ideas may not be broadcast at all.
No, I'm using censorship in the correct fashion.
Your 'fashion' makes the term meaningless. You, yourself, are guilty of censorship under your use, since you chose what words you used and prevented yourself from using ones that you did not want. I "censor" my own postings here; you "censor" yours; others "censor" theirs. By choosing not to post to Twitter, I "censor" Twitter, and ditto Facebook and whatever else. Claiming "censorship" under such a definition is hardly an earth-shattering problem; it is so common that it is meaningless. The only possible use of the term "censorship", then, is to try to evoke the negative connotations of real censorship.
Using your definition, the only reasonable response to a cry of "censorship" is "so what?" Only when it comes to true, enforced censorship does it have any negative connotations. Who in the US truly censors any of the private companies you listed? If your only answer is like "Twitter is closing accounts of people who do X", then you haven't met the burden of proof.
When you point out the TV numbers alone it does not demonstrate the larger scope of the problem.
I pointed out "the TV numbers" because this discussion is about the FCC changing "the TV numbers". They can do nothing about the numbers overall because they do not regulate the vast majority of news sources. Trying to claim that this change will create "censorship" and "monopolies" of news is just silly. It's like saying that a store that refuses to carry M&M candies is trying to deprive the world of chocolate. There are so many other sources of chocolate that you won't go hungry no matter what that store doesn't sell you.
"If you can, help others. If you can't, at least don't hurt others." -- the Dalai Lama