No, I'm only saying I think most Linux users don't bother with changing whatever it defaults to. I have no idea what mine is at home. However, I've dealt with a couple sites this year (bad memory, so not sure which and might technically have been Nov/Dec) that gave trouble for not being on Windows. I only recall coming across them, and then deciding I don't care enough about them and moved on.

I agree that most non-Windows users aren't actively playing with their user agent string. However, is earlier this year such a long time ago? It still is a problem, if not widespread.

They price fixed in the past. They only might have price fixed now. I don't like the state of the market but I don't think they're technically price fixing, at least based upon the information publicly available right now.

The offered reasoning for the current price hike is due to demand, and it seems to at least be superficially true. If demand is high enough, you don't need to price fix. You just charge as much as you can get the companies to pay. When the other manufacturers do the same, it looks similar to price fixing.

While it's true there should not be an expectation of privacy in public, mass surveillance and tracking has at least situationally been found to encroach upon our civil liberties.

I'm not saying I love subscriptions, but in general charging a subscription for the internet/AI features with an ongoing cost at least makes sense. The part that overly annoys me is that features that aren't internet connected are being restricted as well.

Unlike other similar lawsuits, this is based on California's law requiring explicit disclosure. The wording of the law is such that it requires the notice to be clear and conspicuous, saying the notice needs to draw attention to itself. Just having it be in a legal disclosure does not meet the requirements. The screenshot in the article, assuming it's accurate, does not in fact meet those requirements.

Grow up.

Again, still not relevant to the corrections I pointed out. It also doesn't have anything to do with the headline. Also, if you cared so much about whether there was an updated EULA you would have looked it up. Since you didn't provide it as a fact, I can only assume it doesn't and this is an argument without merit.

No idea, but also not relevant to the clarification I provided. Not to be confused with irrelevant. It's just not relevant here.

No. You just have to update Office 2021. You do know what an update is, yes?

I agree that the update would likely be minimal to cover the cert. As for the need, this is only a problem with the Apple ecosystem. Someone else said it's a requirement from Apple. I don't know if that is true, but would make sense.

This is only for accuracy's sake. You're more than free to have opinions on Microsoft's decision. I'm just clarifying the clearly erroneous aspects of the summary.

While Office 2021 is affected by the expiring license, it's still under support until Oct 2026 and users just need to update. It only reverts to read-only if you don't update.

The issue is specific to the licensing server cert. The problem cannot be fixed without an update. They aren't actively breaking functionality. They just decided to not provide an update for Office 2019 because it's end of life.

The key here is that it says processor package and not processor. The SOC and the RAM are combined into one package, with the RAM mounted right next to the SOC on the package.

Based on the actual wording, it sounds like they're talking about games offered on a subscription service.. like Xbox Game Pass. It would still be possible for them to put every game behind its gaming service, or at least on the publishers service, but the fragmentation could cause more harm for the devs/pubs.

The wording of the bill sounds like they're actually talking about games that are on a subscription based services, like Xbox Game Pass.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca...