Yes, simple. And irrelevant. Here is what's relevant: software that doesn't change remains vulnerable forever. Because nobody is fixing any exploits that are discovered.

Wishful thinking will not protect you. Running an actively-maintained system is a better option.

To follow your logic, updates are bad because they can introduce new vulnerabilities. Never mind that the main purpose of the updates is to fix the old vulnerabilities.

Then, why not just release a software product, and not provide updates at all?

You can't make a virtue out of a "static, unchanging code base" that contains vulnerabilities, whether they are discovered or not.

Head in the sand much? You completely miss the point: it doesn't get better either. Ever. That's what happens when an OS no longer has support.

And arguably, it does get worse over time, as vulnerabilities are discovered and exploited, but not fixed.

You can manage when updates happen. Even pause them. I'm running Windows 11 right now on one of my PCs, and have paused updates until the large-file-on-SSD bug is fixed definitively.

I suppose continuing to use Windows 10 is another option, but I'm not sure it's viable -- in the sense of the OS being secure when MS drops support. Maybe it will still be secure the day after, the week after, even the month after ... but eventually it won't, and no fixes for vulnerabilities will be forthcoming.

If this person doesn't want to stop using that computer, then yes, that's a viable option.

You're acting like such computers are "suitable" for most users. I reckon they aren't.

The only notes he'd be taking is on X, but I'm not even sure he thinks anywhere in Africa is a real country?

Pfft. You said Democrats "sure don't" care about felony convictions when it comes to voting, implying Republicans do. Martin Blank then pointed out that virtually all Republican states allow felons to vote, with restrictions in some cases. And your response is "Yes, exactly"??

It's pathetic to flex like that when you have been pwned.

Nobody is saying a felon can't be allowed to be president. This discussion is not about whether being a felon disqualifies you from being president. It doesn't. The issue is whether it matters -- as in whether someone should avoid voting for a candidate who is a felon. In 2024, Republicans voted for Trump despite his felony conviction, thus demonstrating that, for them, it didn't matter.

Now, show me the list of Democrats who ran for president after a felony conviction and were elected.

Not just Democrats. Convicted felons can vote in almost every state (including Republican ones) with some conditions.

Well, as a matter of fact, a convicted felon can become president, and the current occupant of the White House is an example.

There are various disqualifications for someone to be president. A felony conviction is not one of them.

Was he a convicted felon when he purchased and registered the gun? Or did he become a felon after the copyright conviction, and just happened to own a gun at the time his premises were raided before that conviction?

Look, I'm hardly sympathetic to the guy. But depending on the answers to these questions, I think the timing of his purchase matters.

Socialism with American Characteristics

Iowa's rolling farm fields of coffee

Pretty nice to get $25k tax-free every year, eh? I predict this will spread like weeds. Watch as lots of new jobs include tips in their compensation structures.

Believe me, I don't begrudge tipping people in service roles. They work hard for low wages, and deserve a boost. However, I have noticed that things are getting obnoxious. Many establishments already suggest tip amounts on the bill as percentages of the total including tax. Excuse me, but I don't tip the government.

And some of them brazenly suggest amounts that start well over 20% of the bill total. You'd have to be quite exceptional to deserve that amount on a regular basis.

I aim for 20% before tax, and rarely more.

I do think with concepts. They get translated into words to post here, because that's how slashdot works. I think about the square-cube law, I'm actually picturing a 3D cube in my head.
What you haven't done is make any acknowledgement of the concept that while a sand battery might not be efficient at the scale of a house (for example), the bigger it gets the more efficient it becomes. A house might not be enough space - though there are plenty of thermal mass solutions for houses, such as masonry heaters. But this is a district system, 1-2 orders of magnitude larger.
Look at the history:
1. You reply to me, wondering how it can be efficient due to heat loss.
2. I reply, mentioning that the square-cube law means that it won't actually have that much surface area relative to the volume, giving several examples (like an office building).
3. "All heat exchangers are fundamentally surface increase mechanisms." does not imply philosophical heat exchangers that include unintended exchangers or even insulated structures, which are designed to minimize surface increases.
4. This is storage, not a designed radiator; they've optimized for the opposite
5. Accusing me of not understanding.
etc...
You never actually specifically invoked the concept.

There's multiple options for money transfers if any one system goes down. That said, have you seen how many businesses can stay in operation if the internet is down lately? All the major stores shut down.

Well, our language is littered with it - ATM Machine, PIN Number, LCD Display, UPC Code, DMZ Zone, Free gift, new innovation, etc...

Personally, I don't think "the patriarchy" actually exists, at least not in the form attributed to it. While Marx was very off base in a lot of things, I think that what people mistake for patriarchy is actually class dominance. Most men don't have the advantages they would actually have if there was actually a patriarchy enforcing male rule.

What a lot of people tend to miss is that while Men might have more hard power - by law due to their position, wealth, strength of arm, and all that, that women have a lot of "soft power". The ability to convince others to do things without actually having any legal requirement to do so.

I tend to start comparing humans to lion packs in this case. A few powerful and lucky men get many of the women, and while it might look like a heady and desired position, it's a lot more fragile than most think, and only a fraction of men get it. Women actually have a much easier time of it on average, even if they don't reach the lofty heights.