Same.

I'm almost hopeful that in a few years, Starlink Mobile will be the push I need to change. I'm waiting until then, or it gets even worse with T-Maybe

Is the person who ignored Pelosi in the room with you right now?

This "AI" seems to be severely lacking in training, in that no superior/invincible force (e.g. a party simulating law enforcement) showed up and demonstrated the downside to taking certain actions.

Dammit, can't anyone make some stylish cyber-shoes? That looks like shit! Anyone who goes around upskirt-snapping with shoes like that, is going to get laughed out of the ballroom by all the snobs.

Is it ok if I show up in regular glasses, but where an always-on LED is attached to the one of the corners? (I understand pervs are falling out of popularity, but that doesn't mean we need to abandon the whole aesthetic!)

"The only solution" is in fact, not the "only" solution.

The correct and LEGAL means for the police to gain access to the phone is to take it and seal it in a tamperproof container (aka electronic Faraday Evidence Bag), go to a court and ask for a warrant to search the contents.

We have established LAW and procedures for the state to gain access to the device. It is inconvenient ON PURPOSE. and serves as a checks and balance in legal proceedings.

IF that is the case, seize the phone, get a Search Warrant.

The problem is, the state couldn't be bothered following ESTABLISHED law and procedures.

Simply accusing someone of some unspecified crime isn't a right the state has to just bypass Constitutional protections, namely the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Americans have rights, secured in our founding Constitution. I don't care what feelings one might have to the rest of the case. Rights exist, enshrined and we ought to defend them tirelessly forever.

There is some established case law that says that one cannot be compelled to give up a Password, Pin or Pattern Unlock, as a violation of the 4th and 5th Amendment.

Those Amendments are key to a person's rights to be SECURE. Which is the key word here. He SECURED his rights, under duress, by refusing to comply.

THIS is separate from the police chasing him as a possible criminal for crimes I may or may not like.

Rights work by being the STARTING POINT, not an afterthought or worse, something the state can simply ignore in an attempt to prosecute people for potential criminal activity.

The state has legal remedies they ought to seek if they want access to secured personal property. We all know what that is. GET A WARRANT, which is almost always a rubber stamp (very easy bar to jump over). They couldn't even be bothered with that.

Everyone ought to understand, if we do not defend our rights, the state certainly won't.

Do we really have to reinvent the wheel every damn time?! It used to be that you just got Voight-Kampff tested, and the administrator of the test would sign your PGP key. WTF was wrong with that?!

My first reaction is that if one company is selling at half the price, that company will go bankrupt at twice the speed since every transaction was already a money-loser. Customers are absolutely the worst thing for these "businesses."

But is revenue really significant? I can see how neither reducing the price to $0 or increasing their price to 10x what it was, might not really have much of a different impact on the bottom line, compared to all the debt.

I wish this was completely true but I had a monitor I brought in from home to use on a work computer, and a mid-stage upgrade within Windows 11 caused the monitor to stop working at its native resolution and only work at 640x480. It was an older monitor and natively DVI on the monitor itself. I couldn't find a ready solution to the problem. Work ended up giving me an extra to replace mine.

I can only suspect that some kind of security setting was not being met, but either way it was really irritating.

It's a goddamn monitor. It should be compliant with video interface signaling standards and to be able to notify the system of what standards it complies with through the video interface itself or with minimal drivers that are basically just an FYI. Even if it has other features like audio capability, USB passthrough, or even some kind of software-based control of the monitor for some other reason, that shouldn't require crazy amounts of permissions to accomplish.

This sort of crap is what I hate about modern consumer electronics. It used to be that most peripherals didn't require much to function, and either software that ran at the user-level with minimal drivers or else features functioned directly onboard said device let it be controlled. This modern era where everything requires copious permissions and comes packed with malware is truly awful. And frankly Microsoft shares some blame here, for even allowing this in the first place.

Make IBM Great Again: go back to .. leasing computers?!

Nobody remembers or cares that a B-2's toilet cost $23k, so the Pentagon is updating to a newer, better form of government waste that kids today will better understand.

Malware is any software that runs on your computer but is intended to serve the interests of someone else.

Calling it malware isn't so much inaccurate as it's unspecific. Not all malware is adware, but 100% of adware is malware.