I'm "on Telegram" (Messenger; portable Desktop).

I don't know what "furry" may mean - but im pretty certain that I do not belong to that group.
I don't do "illegal".
I am certainly not "Russian".

You all should note that Telegram - the messenger! - is just that: one of many functional messengers. You ALL talk about those "channels" (or whatever that "group thing" is called). And even that "group thing" (which I'm not interested in) is, as so called "social media", for the most part of those many tens of thousands "groups" neither "furry" nor "illegal" nor "russian" but instead simple "social media", be it "asocial media" or not.

For more than 30 years now (when including CompuServe and BBSs than up to 40 years) it is unknown in the "western" world what exact responsibilities a company has regarding the content of a platform. If a company HAS responsibilities regarding user generated content: what are those *exactly* and how has a company to react *exactly* (including the general problem how much working force has to be provided and if that could be substituted by algorithms)? What are responsibilities of *users*? How *exactly* has the cooperation between ISPs, platform providers, and state institutions to work on a permanent basis?

That are all questions that need to be addressed - in general and in detail. For once and for all.

Perhaps I don't get the specific features of that new ESPN service. But sport event lists on a web platform with a listing of all kinds of channels where a user/viewer can view the announced content? That sounds quite familiar since at the very least ten years to me - maybe... just for football (european meaning), but I think I have seen something like that for all types of sport events. Just as one example for for such a service that I regularly use since many years: http://www.fussballgucken.info... - shows daily, weekly, contest organized football events in the whole of europe (or even the world because north and south american leagues are integrated).

This is all irrelevant. There is only one relevant moment: when Windows is installed (or a pre-installed Windows unpacks). That's the moment where a user can create (with many difficulties and without much support) a local account.

When a user *has* a local account it is possible to get rid of "cloud" bullshit and/or avoid "MS accounts". That may not be enough to avoid further confusing "updates" (=downgrades) but the local account is the basis for everything else.

Buhler cited: "There's not a lot to this. You're just charging up Teflon, copper tape, and foam, and you have this thrust."

Fine. There are still long time manned operations in near earth orbits available. If there is not a lot to that thing to test (charged Teflon, copper tape, and foam) then it should be possible within a relative short time frame to set up a test for this. Contact some space agencies with running labs in orbit on your new discovery, Dr. Buhler!

There is only one question for me regarding Office: can I use it local without any relationship to some "cloud service" and that like Office 2007 "forever"?

In the last months I replayed some "ancient" DOS games for nostalgic reasons. Due to the common AI / MLM hype I have asked myself if those gigantic models could help to recreate the graphics of those old things - automatically!

I mean, those pesky CGA graphics were bad back then but accepted because there was nothing better. Should it not be possible for those models to take the existing images / renderings and crank them up? I mean, if they can produce high quality porn images with just some keywords, could they not do something worthwile?

I read that Netflix has around 77M subscribers in USA/Canada (not counting shared access if that is still possible). The "top" title is a serie with 10 episodes, each running for about 47 to 57 minutes (had to look it up because I wouldn't watch something like "Agent" or "Crime" things).

So, divided by 10 an episode might have about 80M hours of watching. Since an episode is shorter than 1 hour there is some excess time here - perhaps related to "shared access"?

But it still stands: a top rated title, supposedly strongly advertised, is watched by the number of subscribers who pay for exactly the service delivered.

I mean, is this really that much? Just 70M+ people watching something they payed for?

"... 627 million viewing hours ..."

Before discussing anything else:

Who published those numers?
How were the numbers measured?
Is the measurement transparent and proveable by parties without commersial interests?

I for one do not/never trust ANY commercially touted usage number from the net. There are far too many possible distortions. (And no, noone gives their methods of counting and the raw numbers to the public to prove - because they all KNOW that those numbers are .... well, bullshit is a too nice word for them)

First: though using "social" net things since my Compu$erve days in the 80ies I still don't know if there is something "social" in these net communications - it still seems to be a (bad) imitation of real life contacts

Second: I don't know a lot of so called "social media" - I especially avoided everything "Facebook" and I don't "log in" into something automatically (e.g. like "Smart"phone users into their Twitter account); so I don't have much contact to those platforms and, thus, don't know much about potential improvements

But I know one thing for sure: if a "social" media site has no contactable human operator or a number / address that can be contacted and is maintained by *human* employees then it's a failed service. These big platforms clearly want to manage everything by "algorithms" and keep humans away from everything because of costs - that is in a way understandable but this will (for now and the foreseeable future) not work.

Example: I'm using an aggregator blog system for scientific issues (in a wide sense); like all other systems they gave up a long time ago und post their content on Facebook along their own blog system; but every few weeks the filter algorithms of Facebook kill a post because of "wording" or something similar (the phrasing of the delete messages often points to "conflicting sexual content"); needless to say that all scientific blog content has nothing in it that could even be remotely considered as "sexual content", but hey... the "algorithms" decide; and they DO decide - it is next to impossible to revert the kill (and meaningless, because any intervention is again answered by bots); one would have to take them to court with all the costs and efforts to change one decision und one would have to do that for every false automatic decision

"Why would you NEVER want to know if your browser has an update?"

One simple reason: I use the portable version of FF (or many other software packages when possible). Therefore I'm completely uninterested in the versioning of the base product - and the portable version updates (automatically) when a new portable version is available (which - at least for products like FF - takes not very long, mostly two or three days).

I had to buy a new desktop pc recently (low to mid end) - w11 was preinstalled. While not everything was working as I wanted / expected (taskbar on the side for example), the difference to w10 was not THAT big (ok, I ensured that Open Shell and some other little tools were working with w11).

But my "main" (private) machine is a "gaming notebook" from 2nd half of 2019 (and it is used for just that - "gaming" in a wide sense of meaning). So I had two machines in use with marginal but noticeable differences.

Since MS announced that the gaming notebook was able to run w11 and offered the upgrade, I thought I could be better off (and in the long run) when both machines run the same OS. So I started the update process for the 2019 gaming notebook. That did not go very well but with the help of the manufactor (Razer) I got it running in the end (was some very unwanted hazzle).

Had I known before that certain hardware components would not work after the update I would have let it go.

In the end this will mean: beside traditional degrees of all kinds you have to have another certificate to land the job, too. And if you are really interested in high ranking job offers, then don't you forget the basics: [degree], MBA.

"... over two million people watched a ... video on YouTube last [whatever] ..."

Just about every time any media content refers to "youtube" or "twitter" or whatever, *huge* numbers appear. With the additional remark that so and so (huge number) users have "read", "watched", "recognized", "noticed"... the referred content.

First: those numbers stem from the OWNERS of the platform referred to. In general ALL those numbers are completely intransparent to the outside, in all aspects: the counting mechanisms, the type of access to the content, the type of users and so (endlessly) on....

Second: bots, preemptive browser-generated clicking, platform-internal "clicking" (e.g. previews in sidebars...), blank betrayal....

Noone can or should ever cite those "numbers". They are with a high probability just plain FAKE!

But wasn't the "new thing information" popup the whole point of the post here? As a shiny new thingy within FF? In opposition to the long time availability of an obscure extension that could be installed by user?