Have you considered Startpage?

Yay! I brought out the real you! Please, more insults, you are teh grist for my mil.

I have received my comeuppance sir, my comeuppance I tell you!

Your inability to answer the simple question is a little disturbing. I'll just accept your evasion as just evasion. I think you might need a hug.

I use Safari, FireFox and Opera on My Macs. They all perform pretty much at the same speed, Might be Azure related.

While all of these issues are framed from a woman's perspective, I wonder if they have considered that there are some other people involved.

We haven't achieved parthogenesis, so a stem donor is needed, and these stories always seem to have a bit of narrative to them.

The people behind this seem to thing that birth control was just invented a few years ago, that people stop having children at any time they economy isn't booming, the only thing remotely touching on this is the one womannoting lower sexual activity for teens.

No where in this is noted that men are checking out. A couple years ago 63 percent of men under 30 have chosen to be single. I suspect it has grown since then. The femosphere has narratively framed this as a male loneliness epidemic, in a faux expression of sympathy.

Meanwhile, men have framed this are claiming that they no longer wish to be involved in a system that to many looks like any interaction with a woman is akin to handling a hand grenade with the pin pulled. One wrong word or move, and you can wreck your life. So they avoid the move. They see that the divorce rate is above 50 percent, which doesn't include the men in unhappy marriage.

What is a real issue is that as the modern narrative for women is like something out of "Sex and the City", where you don't even think about marriage until you are in your mid-30's, and experienced man men to make certain you can find Mr right. Problem with that is that when men hit that age, they think more with their brains than their genitals. In addition to the general disrespect, with fertility on the downswing at that age, many women will be looking at IVF.

And yes, Birth control has been around a long time, especially if you consider condoms. The first birth control pills were approved in the US in 1960. That's 65 years ago! It's a stretch to blame that.

Back to the male loneliness epidemic. I'm in a campus environment. When I was a student, we were all yencing our brains out, and having a lot of fun.

Today, a sort of sexual apartheid has developed. Here are young men and women at their peaks, and there is little interaction.

But here's the interesting observation. The people presumably suffering - the men? They don't look unhappy at all. They hang out, mess with each other as men do, Monkin about. The women on the other hand don't look all that impressed by their own situation.

When I was in college, you would see men and women interacting, holding hands hugging, kissing, enjoying each other's presence. Today, it is almost jarring if you see a man and woman holding hands or interacting. This is weirdly un-natural.

side note: I was married by the time I was in college, so didn't have the "college experience"

Point is, you can swing the pendulum too far, and lets face it, when normal interactions become sexual harassment, when even marriage is problematic, it is not illogical for the gender that is claimed to be always at fault to do a simple risk/reward assessment, decide there is virtually no reward, only risk, then lean out. It is also not surprising that the group who ended up causing this problem frame it as a loneliness epidemic. This is a problem men cannot fix, and with the narrative that it is not possible for a woman to do anything wrong, it is going to be a generational issue to repair.

Since the usual crowd will downmod me, all me incel, and drop to coward status to do so half the time, might as well let everyone know that despite being married for a long time, and not young, I'm still sexually active, and the wife initiates it half the time or more - I don't really keep count. So have at me as you usually do.

Everything VMWare offered is and was glue and automation over the fundamentals underpinnings that now available to anyone freely in the Linux Kernel + qemu project; or some other places.

As with most enterprise software technologies the value was not actually fundamental bits but that all that glue and management was there so that you:

1) Do whatever you need to do in a supported way
1a) for CYA
1b) for actual technical assistance when needed
1c) to appease audit / risk management / insurance people

2) Do it in way that is aligned with however a lot of other organizations are doing it, so you can hire someone to replace your sysadmin if he decides to have a second career in forestry next Tuesday.

Pretending there is no value there is just weird, there is obviously value there, fact is a lot of places were using VMWare and doing new deployments because they saw that value. Now maybe roll your replacement for whatever it is in vshphere you need that proxmox does not do, does make sense after Broadcom's extractive price hikes. That does not mean the VMWare product suite is worthless or that is offers nothing of value over the alternatives, just that it isn't worth (to a lot of clients) Broadcom's new asking price.

It is also true the Virtualization space has been comoditized, there may not be a business in maintaining an enterprise class commercial software suite, and Broadcom's strategy of extracting the most revenue they can from a small group of customers who can't or won't transition off until they do eventually sunset the project is the right one. People like to moralize about this stuff but at the end of the day it is just business, and long revenue extraction has been part of the commercial software industry nearly as long as there has been a commercial software industry.

it isnt a trope it is a witticism.

Mark Twain was joking when he wrote it, but like all observational humor it is funny because there is a grain of truth to it. It isn't like a law of physics or something where a single counter example falsifies it, as long as it true often enough to broadly reflect the reality we experience it is good enough.

No it isn't real "evidence" that the author of BitCoin is a single persons but it is a valid counter point to, we can't find a single BitCoin author so maybe it was really a team. Which is a fact free hypothesis. It is simply the assertion that the author of BitCoin remains a secret, one thing we know about secret keeping is that the fewer people with knowledge of a secret is the more likely it is to stay a secret, therefore in absence of additional BitCoin author specific observations the mere fact we don't know who was behind it suggests it was either a very small well compartmentalized group or one person.

Optics and legal exposure. This is going to be evidence in every trial they face. At a stretch, it might even be called witness tampering.

So Anthropic demos Mythos and OpenAI has to say put out a press release.

Altman's house of cards is collapsing...

Two can keep a secret if one of them is dead..

I don't think it is a team. That would be even more people with 130 some odd billion reasons to show their cards.

I don't even think one of there letters could sit on something like this effectively. Hell even the airman rescue mission leaked, and there was little or no financial incentive to leak that.

I am not the one here that doesn't know what I am talking about.

Availability is a leg of the CIA triangle bro.. If the authorized user CANT get access and its not fixable. That is a security failure, and likely as serious as a total confidentiality failure.

You getting root does not make you the evil made, you getting root means you SE'd the owner into running something, found a nice heap spray in the browser followed by a local privesc etc. Realistically these are all going to be drive-bys of some kind, where the victim stumbles onto your watering hole, runs whatever code you the attacker react when the listener calls home. Go in plunder and leave if you identify the box as being someones home PC. You're not going worry about persistence or dwell time..

Your answer merely shows your narrative, And really, it is a simple question, that you refuse to answer. I say remove America from teh equation, you try multiple times to steer it back to Trump.

Usually you are pretty intelligent and insightful. Are you perhaps collecting yuan for your statements? I mean seriously, it is just a pointed hypothetical

It is not difficult to understand that it is a hypothetical that makes a point that there has always been a dominant country. That humans always get involved with others, often in Warfare. Does not matter if it is the British Empire, the failed attempt by Europe and Japan in the 1940's that led to the US becoming dominant, or the Roman Empire, or the Egyptians, Abashevos, the Hittites or Assyrians to name a few. It was always a "smaller" world, but some group was always willing to impose their will.

Now with this - My own answer - If the USA disappears overnight, China will replace it. See how easy that was?

peace out.

I wonder. Certainly in suburbia yes. Cities though.

People have to be able to park, vehicles have to be able to get by in the opposite lane if you cone off an area being patched. I am not sure you can necessarily fix every hole in a give couple blocks at the same time without creating a significant traffic problem.

And just so everyone knows, I did not drop to anonymity, someone else did. But yes, These folks cannot even answer a very simple hypothetical question, and try to force their narrative. Perhaps they don't realize it says much about them and their narrative?

Once again, the answer is simple IMO - If the US disappears overnight, China will become the world's dominant power. However, I would not expect them to be a gentle guiding force to lead the world to perennial peace. And that is the point. As easy as it is to deservedly whine about Trump, and claim he represents America, he does not. In fact, the Republicans are looking forward to a shellacking in the Mid Terms, the disapproval rate on Trump is now higher than Bush2 or Richard Nixon post Watergate. A majority of Americans want him impeached, his policies are wrecking the economy. I suspect some of his fervent followers in the rolling coal brigade aren't doing it as much when paying 6+ dollars per gallon for Trumpfuel diesel, and people wonder how this is happening when the US is the leading oil exporter.

But a simple hypothetical about a subject that is actually different from "trumpistan" rhetoric, with the insinuation that I'm MAGA, merely shows the utter intolerance of some people's viewpoints. To the point of embarrassing themselves.

Just collect your yuan, and declare yourself the winner for refusing to answer. At this point, I see an intelligent person who is afraid to answer the question, perhaps related to where he is posting from, and who is paying him.

Your answer merely shows your narrative, And really, it is a simple question, that you refuse to answer. I say remove America from teh equation, you try multiple times to steer it back to Trump.

Usually you are pretty intelligent and insightful. Are you perhaps collecting yuan for your statements? I mean seriously, it is just a pointed hypothetical

It is not difficult to understand that it is a hypothetical that makes a point that there has always been a dominant country. That humans always get involved with others, often in Warfare. Does not matter if it is the British Empire, the failed attempt by Europe and Japan in the 1940's that led to the US becoming dominant, or the Roman Empire, or the Egyptians, Abashevos, the Hittites or Assyrians to name a few. It was always a "smaller" world, but some group was always willing to impose their will.

Now with this - My own answer - If the USA disappears overnight, China will replace it. See how easy that was?

peace out.