I assume these recordings are military secrets. If so, they need to be stored on hardware that is under the control of the Israili government. A "hardware fork" of Azure, that is, running on hardware that happens to be running Azure technology but that has no connection to the internet, would make sense. But if it's merely a "segregated area" within the wider Azure universe, that's not good enough.

This is the economist view, but it's really not true. Companies are made of people, and people make decisions for all sorts of reasons, almost none of them purely financial even when the justifications are argued in financial terms. In this particular case, Steve Jobs was a UX purist who made all sorts of decisions on the basis of his taste for elegance and simplicity, even when they didn't make much financial sense. Most of his worst ideas were stopped by the people around him -- often with financial arguments -- but many weren't.

The "homo economicus" model is useful, but don't confuse it with reality.

I was traveling last week and missed it, so this is cool.

I don't think it counts as a dupe unless the original is still on the first couple of pages.

Microsoft should be forced to provide security updates in perpetuity.

Car companies have to provide parts for decades so should Microsoft.

There's a big difference between "in perpetuity" and "for decades."

The president is the boss of the executive branch, and he has to be able to give orders to them to tell them how to do their jobs. Of course, those orders should only be about how they're supposed to go about executing the law, as defined by Congress and the Constitution. The problem isn't the ability of the boss to give orders, that's as it must be, the problem is that Trump is giving orders that tell the executive branch to do things that that exceed and sometimes defy the laws defined by Congress and the Constitution.

When that happens, it's the responsibility of the other two branches to rein him in or remove him. The courts are mostly trying to do their job to rein him in but their ability is limited. The intention is that when the executive gets out of control, Congress should give him the boot. Instead, the GOP leadership in Congress is cheering him on.

To be more precise, it's backed by the enforceability of debt contracts, i.e. the judicial and executive branches of the nation state. But that's only what makes sure the value is provided, what actually backs fiat currency is someone's legally-binding promise to do some sort of productive work. Fiat money is created by banks when they issue loans (including but definitely not limited to the Federal Reserve bank), so every dollar created is balanced by a dollar of debt that is created at the same time, and when the debt is paid off, the dollar ceases to exist.

Suppose you want to build a new house. You go to the bank and borrow, say, $1M. Many people think the bank loans you $1M that they have sitting in their (virtual) vault, money that was deposited by people with savings accounts at the bank, but that's not true. What happens is that the bank invents $1M to lend to you. It's not quite that simple (but note that we've abandoned fractional reserve lending; there are no reserve requirements any more), but we'll gloss over the irrelevant complexities. The core point is, the bank creates (a) $1M and (b) a mortgage contract, which offset one another. $1M came into existence, but there's a promise to repay, and therefore destroy, that money.

You pay the money to the construction company, who pays it to their workers and suppliers and investors, and they build you a house. You move in and all is good, except now you have an obligation to apply your labor for the next 30 years to generate value so you can make your monthly mortgage payments.

That is what backs fiat currency: The future labor of borrowers. The exact nature of the labor is undefined, of course, but that doesn't make the labor itself any less of a very real, very productive (by definition!) asset, and it is that productive asset that gives the currency its intrinsic value. And, of course, the legal system is backing the contracts, so you can't just decide you don't want to pay, not without significant negative consequences. That's just one of a number of crucial roles the government plays. Another is the laws that mandate that all debts public and private be denominated in and payable with the nation's currency.

Obviously, crypto assets (they really aren't currencies; even ignoring their lack of intrinsic value, they suck as currencies) have nothing remotely comparable to that sort of solid foundation. Less obviously, so-called "hard" currencies don't either. The classic hard currency, gold, does have a little intrinsic value because it's pretty and has some useful physical properties, but the vast majority of its value is "pure magical thought". It has that value only because everyone believes it does, but there's nothing behind that belief but tradition, not even anything as abstract as contractual obligations. Unlike fiat currencies.

Mark my words, they'll end up walking back on the planned (and entirely fake) obsolescence of Windows 10.
I don't share our optimism.

All of these Windows machines that are no longer being updated will be targeted in a huge malware campaign at some point, and it will be a big deal.
I share your pessimism.

My guess is that Microsoft's lawyers and PR department are pressuring the C-Suite to get as many Windows 10 users to do anything OTHER than run Windows 10 without updates, whether that's upgrade to 11, pay for extended support (in cash and in privacy), or bail on Windows entirely (macOS, Linux, etc.).

The bad PR that will come when gazillions of exposed Windows 10 machines are not getting patched will be bad for Microsoft, and it may lead to lawsuits or investigations by regulatory bodies.

By making these kinds of "very affordable" offers, even with unacceptable-to-many terms like "must have a MS account," it will defuse some of the outrage and likely make it easier or faster to win in the courts if anyone tries to sue or if regulators start to complain.

The phone number thing has nothing to do with tracking, it's about account recovery. IMO, they should offer an option to skip it that makes you promise repeatedly that if you ever forget your password, or if your account is ever taken over, that you'll give up and make a new account instead of demanding some other way to prove your identity and recover your account. "I promise to take responsibility for maintaining access to this account and will never ask Google to reset my forgotten/stolen password".

Probably people would still pester them for a way to get their account back, though.

Why female?

"Once you've built the solar panel, shipped it, installed it, tested it, and paid any tariffs and other taxes on it, the energy is very close to free, assuming the point-of-use is very close to where the solar panels are installed.."

There, fixed that for you.

in "conflicts of interest."

This is a good change of pace.

In the past, he's make bold pronouncements on things he doesn't know much about.

Why hasn't that already happened, then? It's not like the market force in question are new.

Top 10 US states by manufacturing jobs:

1. California (D)
2. Texas (R)
3. Ohio (R)
4. Illinois (D)
5. Michigan (split)
6. Pennsylvania (split)
7. New York (D)
8. Indiana (R)
9. Wisconsin (split)
10. North Carolina (split)

The R / D / split designations above describe the current state government, "split" meaning that control is divided between the parties. So of the top 10, three are Republican-controlled, three are Democrat-controlled and four are divided (though the Michigan split is a very recent phenomenon; Michigan has been quite blue for a long time).

The pattern that I see is that the blue states generate most of the new ideas and products and manufacturing naturally springs up around them, then over time manufacturing of now-established products gets moved to red states for the reasons you pointed out. This is an ongoing process that keeps the manufacturing output relatively balanced over time -- but keeps the blue states richer and maintains their dominant position in US GDP.

Also, it's worth noting that the federal minimum wage is irrelevant these days; market prices have risen above it. Even in low-income states unskilled jobs pay more than the federal minimum wage. (To me, this isn't an argument that the minimum wage needs to be raised, it's an argument that it should be abolished and that we should trust the labor market to set wages.)

Do you also not know how percentages work?

My AI's name is "Your Dragon." You publish an feature-film-length instructional video and you expect me to NOT use it???