This report is largely an advertisement for Originaâ(TM)s contract negotiation services. It is sparse on detail and should be viewed skeptically.

Methodology

* Research firm: Censuswide
* Commissioned by: Origina
* Fieldwork: May 11â"19, 2026
* Sample: 2,018 senior IT decision-makers
* Geography: US 1,011; UK 1,007
* Seniority: Director level or above
* Eligibility: Direct influence over software budgets and renewals
* Organisation size: Revenue of $1bn+ or 10,000+ employees
* Vendor exposure: IBM, HCL, VMware/Broadcom or SAP at meaningful scale
* Industries: Financial services, insurance, telecommunications, public sector and retail

Key findings

* 95%: Had paid for a vendor-driven change they expected to reduce performance, reliability or business value.
* 78%: Said their primary vendor controlled the timing and terms of change.
* 76%: Reported little real negotiating leverage.
* 80%: Said switching major vendors would cause significant disruption.
* $12.87m: Average reported cost of the most recent vendor-driven change.
* 28%: Average share of enterprise software budgets spent on vendor-driven changes organisations would not have actively chosen.
* 84%: Said senior engineering staff often or always maintained vendor-driven changes instead of building future capability.

Contract negotiation priorities

* Renewal pricing: Cap annual increases and define expansion prices.
* Support: Set minimum support periods and advance notice of withdrawal.
* Upgrades: Limit mandatory changes; require written justification and cost estimates.
* Exit: Agree migration fees, assistance and transition rates in advance.
* Portability: Guarantee data export, documented APIs and transition access.
* Maintenance: Permit independent support where feasible.
* Security: Define patching obligations and response times.
* Cost tracking: Include engineering time, downtime and hardware replacement in change assessments.

Note that considering a thriving open source community is missing from their messaging.

Some may not recognize the Brazil reference.

No need to be antagonistic. Respond with inflation adjusted BLS salary average and percentile for the job and region.

https://www.bls.gov/oes/curren...

Itâ(TM)s unclear what happens when one aspect of their system changes unless other parts also change. The bags flying free was designed to make boarding more efficient, which reduces gate time. If bag check is not free, then itâ(TM)ll mean more people bringing their bags on plane. This means boarding will be more complex and time consuming. Itâ(TM)s not clear their âoefirst come first chooseâ seat process will work as well, as people trying to backtrack, or holding up the entire boarding process.

I get that AI is costly, hard to run on the average desktop, and hence APIs. However, it seems we've shifted as a community to fully supporting proprietary web APIs where we not only don't have source code but even lack the binaries. Couldn't slashdot moderators help by promoting truly open source tools, especially AI, that can be run locally, even if it requires a 10k hardware? It seems very reasonable if a company sells API as cost-sharing model. Even so, at least we could support entities that fully open their models and have active "hacker" communities that are not bound to a proprietary service.

Presuming they used DNA to find the suspect, located with some statistical certainty (say one in a million). I'm wondering then if that person's DNA match was the presented as proof, eg "one in a million this isn't the killer"? If so, isn't this a form of double dipping? If you "used up" the one in a million chance to find the suspect, can you use the statistics dice again to claim that this suspect is also the killer?

The existing practice of human car drivers in this situation is to slowly inch though the crowd. Amend the regulations to reflect practice, then update wamo to behave according to the regulations.

> Have been screen sharing with Zoom and MS Teams for at least two years...

You mean other tabs within Chrome only? Or actual windows/screens from other applications?

"We have whole boatloads of activists, who think it's cool and progressive to plaster people's private sexual problems all over...that's the reason for laws like the one in TFA

Oh, but the creator and sponsors of the bill will tell you that this has nothing at all to do with transgender people. This is really about protecting women in bathrooms, don't you see?

Transgender people, who would be LED OUT IN CUFFS if they followed your advice to "use the other restroom," are merely collateral damage in the battle against men sexually assaulting women in women's bathrooms (in a subset of government buildings).

So tell us, do you approve of this bill, and why?

Sorry for re-replying, cleaning up my formatting and adding more about why this Child Molesters will love this bill:
--
Before the "Bathroom Bill" Molester: I love Texas! I can grope whoever I want and not go to jail!

--
  After the "Bathroom Bill" Molester: Extremely feminine transgender women and 7-year-old boys are forced to use the men's room by themselves in a subset of government buildings!

No one has a job because every tech company pulled out of Texas, but...I'm applying for every government job I can! I'm still not on the sex offenders list!

Molester (kneels reverantly): Thanks to Jesus Christ and Dan Patrick!

This is not a rights issue or a bathroom issue.

A bill that dictates who can use the bathroom is not a rights issue or a bathroom issue?

What color is the sky in your world?

As a Texan, I've been reading about this bill for almost a year now. Here's some context around it:

1) Texas still has some of the most molester-friendly groping laws in the nation (anything short of penetration is a class C misdemeanor, you won't even go to jail for it). This bill does nothing to address it.

2)The driving force behind the bill is revenge on the federal government for dictating that transgender students can use the restroom of their identified gender (a policy that is strongly supported by local school districts). That's why the bill only applies to government buildings (and a subset of those, at that!).

3)The bill's author, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick (not the sportscaster) got his start as a bargain-bin Rush Limbaugh. He realizes that the "social conservatives" lost the fight against gays, and he's using this to target a smaller, even more vulnerable minority.

Before the "Bathroom Bill" Molester: I love Texas! I can grope whoever I want and not go to jail! --- After the "Bathroom Bill" Molester: Oh noes! Extremely feminine transgender women are forced to use the men's room in a subset of government buildings! No one has a job because every tech company pulled out of Texas, but...I can still grope whoever I want, short of penetration, and not go to jail! Molester (kneels reverantly): Thanks to Jesus Christ and Dan Patrick!

Can you point us to some statistics that show

a)there's an epidemic of men in women's bathrooms committing assaults?

b)making extremely feminine transgender women go into men's bathrooms will somehow reduce assaults?

c)a law that only applies to SOME GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS will have any effect on this "epidemic"?

To put it bluntly, you've been duped by Dan Patrick and his hate squad. Don't kid yourself-this law does nothing to protect women or any victims of sexual assault. Do you think that bush-league Rush Limbaugh gives a shit about whether or not women get sexually assaulted?

It's mainly an impotent revenge play on the federal government for dictating that transgender students can use the restroom of their identified gender (a policy that is strongly supported by local school districts). If it passes, it will do untold economic damage to Texas, and INCREASE sexual assaults.

If you are a Texan, make sure you know how your state lawmakers voted, and make sure you tell them they're getting VOTED OUT if they supported this petty, oppressive law that has no place in the freedom-loving state of Texas.

Straight men dressed as women commit rapes in women's bathrooms.

Not only do you need to prove that this is true (spoiler alert: it's not), you also need to prove that the law would do anything to change this.

The real context around this law is

1)"Social conservatives" lost the battle against the gays, so they are starting a new battle against a smaller, even more vulnerable minority.

2)"Small-government conservatives" resent the federal governments above, and local school districts below, having sane policies about transgender student bathroom use. Notice that the law ONLY APPLIES TO GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS (and even that has some expections). If there was an epidemic of cross-dressing rapists, wouldn't it make more sense to have this law apply to private businesses as well?

3)The author of the bill, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, is a minor-league Rush Limbaugh that somehow got elected to high office. He's a grandstanding idiot that doesn't care how many transgender teens commit suicide, so long as he can rile up his base with this fake crisis.