Not really. What is unprecedented is a call for support for an OS that is not in any way in a long term support contract for over 10 years. You don't get this anywhere else. Heck for the most popular desktop Linux you get 9 months of support. MONTHS! Not even a year. And consumers do not usually seek out LTS releases.

The fact that a future version finally mandates hardware level security (the last consumer OS to do so, and I remind you it's no the 90s, we're in the world of OS acting as passkeys for external services) isn't artificial obsolescence, it's trying to force the one thing Slashdotters have been calling for for years: improved security.

It will not do so in the slightest. Governments are wholly unaffected by this, they are already running Windows 11, or they have LTS agreements in place. And they really don't care much what consumers do with their hardware.

This is the problem with your logic. We're here many years later. What was an antitrust issue in 1995 is now an expected minimum feature. Consumers expect that on a freshly installed PC the vendor provides an internet browser. Also no it's not more difficult to install a browser. Unless you mean clicking a single button (you can't auto default a browser, but you can automatically bring up the window for the user to click on your browser) is "difficult". I don't know anyone who uses Edge, and I know a lot of computer users who metaphorically couldn't tie their own digital shoelaces.

Your post is another typical case of Slashdot being out of touch with reality.

Slashdot logic: Microsoft doesn't take security seriously!
Microsoft: we'll re-design our security infrastructure from the ground up including hardware hardening and yeah we may be the last consumer OS to do so but we're finally improving security.
Slashdot logic:

Honestly everyone here is a whiney bitch.

You can't fail a demo due to a bug in the product if the product is working perfectly. He should accept the failure with more grace ala BSOD on Windows 95 when Bill Gates plugged a plug and pray printer in, rather than gaslighting everyone.

Reform copyright, allow derivative works, abolish moral rights. What's the worst that could happen? Solves the problem of AI being "inspired" by existing works. Well, perhaps someone will write a crappy HP-inspired story about Tanya Grotter, a machine-gun wielding lady wizard who goes after bad Chechens (that is a real book, BTW). So what? The goal of copyright is cultural abundance, and that will (eventually) include AI generated works.

Look at Nosferatu, considered to be one of the great vampire movies. The movie was called that because they did not secure the copyright to the Dracula story, and after a lost lawsuit they had to destroy all copies and negatives. Luckily a few survived, and we can still enjoy it.

From Roseanne to Hussein Obama on X, "Remember when you and your wife called Bog Iger to have me fired?"

Great! I love academics who recommend realistic policies that can be quickly and easily implemented.

Exactly what background and/or career does prepare one well for the presidency? A law degree? Founding a successful business? A career in politics? An MBA? Perhaps being a comedian. Or perhaps the job (like many high level managerial jobs) is such a complex multi-faceted one that no career is going to prepare you for it, and no background is a great predictor for success. Perhaps it is more about personality than experience, but even that is not a great predictor. I've seen plenty of politicians who looked great for the job, only to turn out complete rubbish, or the other way around. Or a brilliant mayor who turned out to be a shit minister. And it depends on circumstances as well... one of our MPs is remembered as lackluster and ineffectual, but I think he would have been great if times had been different. Likewise I think that Zelensky would have been a so-so president in peacetime conditions... but he stepped up brilliantly after his country got invaded. Kind of how people look back on Churchill... before the war, people didn't think he was all that either.

Third options never go anywhere in a de facto two party system. You need 2 stage voting: "I want to vote for [independent candidate] but if he doesn't make the cut, I want my vote to go to [rep / dem]"

How will it be enforced?

Who will do the enforcing?

*Looks awkwardly at the title of this story*

Everything we've ever created is "such a hack". It's the application of physics in ways to solve a problem. EAMR is no more a hack than changing the magnetic head orientation is. Or changing the size of the write head, or the material of the platter, or making heads aerodynamic. It's just engineering.

Based on the number of incredibly stupid posts we see online I don't see how you could give your fellow countrymen that benefit of doubt. No there's waaaay too many people who actually believe the shit they say. You don't need to fake an election when you have a dumb populace.

And by dumb I mean people who shout "Lock her up" in 2016 and yet vote for Trump in 2024. I mean people who are still looking for Hunter Biden's laptop. I mean people like at the top of this page, someone who claims that the Democrats banned several books, none of which were banned and all of which are still available.

The alternate reality is weird, and half the population seem to live in it.

Precisely none of those books were ever banned.

Be a better and more intelligent person.

America was founded in 1916 by white supremacist ideals like slavery, war and genocide. The sooner it comes to do end the better for person kind.

I'm genuinely curious, while you make a good underlying point for which there is plenty of data to back it, why on why would you pick an example profession that has such an insanely low sample size, and a profession known for its mortality too. Seriously dude, we have huge aggregated datasets showing how average across the population there are improvements. WTF would you use an example subset of 45 people to make your case.