They could, but how do you determine which role is which? A global company like Amazon, Google, or Microsoft, can't realistically operate entirely from the US - plenty of jurisdictions requires a larger companies maintain a regional office to operate in them, and even without that you often need local expertise in various fields, especially those with a financial/legal bent, and obviously for things like logistics, sales, and marketing (which can be a whole minefield of PR screwups if you don't understand the nuances of local culture) too. Overseas offices therefore are not going away without inflicting massive damage on the US's global companies.

If you complete MAGA's ultimate goal and get rid of, say, all the Indian H1Bs since TCS dominates the sector, that you'd realistically have to offshore the task of producing any Hindi localisation and region specific coding, because - you guessed it - you almost certainly won't be find enough native US citizens that also have both the required knowledge of Hindi and can also code. Even if you can recruit enough Hindi speaking coders in the US, given every other big tech company will need to be doing the same thing, you also need to repeat that for lots of other localisations with even smaller potential labour pools too.

That means you demonstrably need an overseas development team that deals with it, and if that can't economically be H1Bs in the US then it's going to be TCS or whoever else's workers in India, or whichever other outsourcing company and country's office you put them in. So, by a neccessity driven by the demands of Wall Street to prioritise value and return a profit, now you've got a development team of foreign labour based in an office somewhere outside the US. Surely it's not up to "the party of small government" (LOL) to dictate what tasks a private enterprise can and cannot do with their staff unless it's some kind of national security matter? If not, then they can tell them to work on whatever else they want, including all the coding that might have been done by H1Bs *or* US citizens based on their offices the US. If so, then there are some well known systems of government where that level of control is the norm; absolute monarchies/dictatorships, facism, and communism, and I think we can safely rule out MAGA going down the communism route...

"Distracting" is probably the whole point. Look at the cool video, and not the UI disaster that is the rest of Windows 11. I guess you could also set it to a clip of Homer Simpson thinking of clowns when Marge is talking to him and switch to desktop to accurately mirror your state of mind in a typical Teams call? Can it play the audio too? $deity help the poor bastard that forgets to lock their screen when they leave their desk and falls victim to the very obvious office jape that this affords if so (HR are probably going to rolling up their sleeves and rubbing hands in glee when they hear about this).

But really, WTF asked for this? Other than the kind of user that has all that garish dynamic aRGB lighting on their "rig" or Microsoft got trolled by 4Chan, I got nothin.

Even if you assume full RTO (which won't happen), at $100,000 per H1-B, you're only going to need a reasonably low number of people in the team to setup a remote office for the entire team and ship a manager out there to oversee them - or just outsource that role too.

Fairly obviously, this almost certainly won't result in many thousands of H1-Bs each paying $100k to the US government each year; it'll result in many thousands of jobs that would have been paying US taxes on their wages, and then paying for accommodation, a car, for leisure, and whatever else into the US economy paying their taxes and spending their wages in wherever the new (or expanded overseas) office is instead.

Smart countries will be making setting up offices and bringing those outsourced workers in much easier right now, but I'd also expect some buildings in India are going to see their "Tata Consulting" logo get one from Amazon, Microsoft or whoever alongside it too.

[To answer your question, the figures typically come from CDNs and major websites doing browser data analysis so, while there's quite a bit of wiggle room, they are going to at least be in the ballpark and definiltely not orders of magnitude out.] Personally, I think people are being too simplistic about the stats and likely outcomes and, arguably, focusing too much on entirely the wrong issue.

I totally agree on your main point; 7-8 years is a good run for a specific major release of an OS, or any other software application. You might not like the decision, but Microsoft announced the end of official support some years ago and that we're now approaching that deadline is just BAU and not something anyone should really have an issue with. They're not taking Windows 10 off you (yet?), but they are making it clear that if you continue to run it you're doing so at your own risk from next month. Pretty much everyone, including the FOSS community, does this with older versions at some point. It's been done countless times before, and will be done countless times in the future - in that light, singling out this one specific example isn't a particularly sound argument, is it?

Whatever the percentage of Win10 holdouts is (I've seen recent figures closer to 50%), it's highly unlikely to be entirely down to "lack of TPM". Windows 11 is a privacy raping UI/UX nightmare, so I suspect a large majority of those Windows 10 holdouts have hardware that actually could run Windows 11 just fine, but are actively choosing not to do so. When many of them inevitably get compromised (which they will), it's going to be interesting to see who gets the blame for that - and the fallout from whatever the resulting botnets are used for - in the media, but that's another topic for another day. There will also be another fraction who simply don't know or don't care; the OS is part of the hardware purchase, and if the hardware is working fine then there's no reason to change anything, and they'll only upgrade when things break (likely due to overworked fans packing up after the CPU has been running flat out for several months as part of some botnet or other). Given most users performance needs have hit a plateau, that could be quite a large fraction, and will naturally decline over time. Finally, you'll have the fraction that understand the issue and have legacy hardware, but can't / won't upgrade because of other user-specific reasons - e.g. they just can't afford it right now.

Key point: none of the people in those groups - probably the majority of that 40-50% - are going to be sending their old PCs to landfill any time soon, and certainly not all in one go on October 14th.

The real issue here is that Microsoft has arbitrarily decided - for the financial benefit of themselves and their hardware/advertising partners - to try and force an unnecessary hardware and OS/"telemetry" upgrade, rather than simply put a banner in the setup process starting with something along the lines of "This hardware lacks critical security functionality and your data may be at increased risk...". We know beyond a doubt that this is an entirely arbitrary hardware requirement decision because of all the workarounds posted online showing how to get Windows 11 running on hardware it supposedly doesn't support. That is pretty much textbook abuse of a monopolistic position in the market, and that's the tack PIRG (and the likes of the DoJ, FTC, EU, etc.) probably should be taking; force Microsoft to remove the arbitrary restriction but make it clear that if you don't have TPM 2.0, that's on you. If you understand what TPM actually does, then you probably also have at least a basic clue about PC/network security and will realise that is pretty much zero additional risk outside of some corporate environments.

Yes, there will still be holdouts, just as there still are on even older software releases and Windows version, but at that point it's entirely on them. They've either chosen the Windows 11 path, with all that entails, or they've chosen some other option (trying to secure a Windows version <11, Linux, Mac, whatever) with all that entails. As long as is not a monoculture with a common failure mode, we should be fine with that.

Given the vast amount of data that is collected and sent to the mothership in modern "connected" cars, maybe they realised they can sell that on? Apart from all the obvious stuff like realtime tracking data and telemetry on your driving style while you are are on the road, there's your preferences on playlists, what kind of temperature you prefer (from which health info can be inferred), what stores you prefer and where your friends and family live, (extracted from parking location data), all tied into the real ID you used to buy and register the car - no "dark profiles" here.

It's a model that seems to be working very well for browers and certain OSs, as well as pretty much all of the Internet of Shit. It might cost a bit more and be a lot larger than some connencted $20+tariffs widget, but a modern car is still just another component of the IoS. It's said the margin on a mass market car is around 5-10%; care to bet that the captured data is being sold on to info brokers for a whole lot more?

Or it's a new take on the "RTO Mandate" approach to headcount reduction leveraging a kind of reverse Dunning-Kruger.

Right now, everyone at Opendoor is thinking of their colleagues and wondering if they are in the 15% that won't get the cut. For a team of 20, that means you've got to either truly believe that you're in the top three of that group, are blissfully naive, or will be polishing your CV and getting it out to agencies this weekend, and since company morale just went to shit, there's a pretty good chance that a chunk of those who *are* confident they'll make the cut will be doing the same, because once everyone else is gone they're going to have a lot more work to do. Good luck running the company on the blissfully naive remants.

Yes, there's probably a LOT of deadwood at Opendoor but, like RTO Mandates, this isn't the best way to get rid of it, and will have the same result as RTO; a lot of the best and brightest will be deciding the door they really want is the exit door.

Rich people (at the level you are implying) are generally egomanical, narcissistic, sociopaths who have no idea how to do the day to day things in life because they pay other people to do it for them. If you cream off the ~10,000 wealthiest people on the planet and put them into a community of some kind, even with robots to do the bulk of the work, I would still predict you'd rapidly find yourself back with a "1%" of around 100 mega-wealthy people, amid on-going power stuggles that soon turn ugly and gut the robot population (who else is going to do the fighting?).

With the labour pool mostly gone, the total population of meatbags will reach 0 soon after. It'd be like the Golgafrinchan B Ark, only much more so.

Come to think of it, there's probably a pretty decent dystopian short story with some very dark humour there...

I guess that depends on the volume of the aquifer and the geology. If there's a non-porous layer of rock in the ~1300ft of rock above it then, while the aquifer will inevitably start to collapse creating cracks in the higher layers of rock, it might be some time before enough salt water mingles with the fresh to exceed safe potable water limits. Besides, as long as it's still sufficiently less salty than typical sea water, then it's still going to be a lot more efficient to run it through some kinds of desalination plant than it would be to use ocean water like countries such as the UAE are doing, with a lot less waste brine produced as well.

I guess we'll need follow-up studies to be sure, but with the increasing pressure on fresh water supplies and more turbulent weather patterns making some of the current collection basins for reservoirs less reliable, search for potential alternative sources of potable, or even near-potable that can be readily purified, is probably quite a prudent thing to be doing. Dying of dehydration is not a pleasant way to go.

That's kinda the unspoken point behind doing this that I alluded to. There is a correlation between those who are poorer in money and in health, e.g. those are are most likely to be the net drain on the social services budgets, so by getting them to pay a bit more income tax and be a bit less of a drainon funds after their retirement because they die sooner, the end result is a disproportionate net reduction in the required funding of state pensions and healthcare.

YMMV on what all that is, probably depending on how much of a utilitarian you are, but it's absolutely some combination of deeply cynical and elitist, yet also a gain for the greater good of the population as a whole through the potential for lower taxation to provide the additional support that would be needed otherwise.

Several countries in Europe are taking this tack; a gradual rise in the retirement age before you qualify for the state pension. You could have a private pension and retire earlier on that, but many people are too cash-strapped to make any meaningful payments into a private scheme, and especially so when they are young enough for the plan to hopefully accrue a good deal of compounded investment returns.

In theory, it should help maintain the size of the labour pool, ensure older - and typically higher earning - workers pay more taxes to fund social security and healthcare, and (the unspoken bit) physically wear themselves out a bit more so they don't spend as long drawing down on those social security & heathcare funds once they do retire. Get the numbers right, and it should smooth out difference between the the taxable income from the labour pool against the need to raise taxes by eye watering amounts to cover all the state's post-retirement support costs. In practice the UK's reality at least is that a lot of the higher earners (boomers) actually do have a decent enough private pension pot and already checked out of the labour pool during Covid to the extent there are on-going efforts to try and get them (and their experience) back into work, so it seems further "corrections" will necessary to improve the balance. Especially so of the political right get their way and we follow the US' route and start blanket deportations of immigrants and reducing work visas rather than letting them fill in the gaps in the native labour pool that the natives generally don't want to do.

A bit too early to tell, although I have my suspicions, but under previous administrations (including Trump 1.0) doing this a few times with each sender was a *very* effective unsubscribe function.

Yeah, similar in the various anti-spam systems we run. Including PACs etc, the numbers are pretty clear, and the pecentages of spams are noticably higher for the GOP (not that the DEMs get a clean sheet either) in all of the following:

Emails that fail Bayes for spaminess.
Emails sent to spam traps.
Emails sent to non-US citizens (which, BTW, is against US campaign law if they're soliciting funds, so we forward all those to the FEC.
Emails sent to compromised email addresses (e.g. Company X gets their customer list hacked, spams start arriving shortly thereafter).
Emails sent from known spam-friendly ISPs.
Emails sent from eyeball network ranges (e.g. most likely a botnet).

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's going to get called a duck. Spam is no different.

Actually, in the UK it's from age *six* if it's a pre-paid card, age eleven if linked to a bank account as a traditional debit card. I suspect there is some coding built into the number that might let a retailer determine the specific type of card and allow/block its use for ID accordingly, but functionally the pre-paid debit ones support contactless etc. just fine and on most online systems they just come up as "Visa Debit" or "Mastercard Debit", exactly the same as my own "adult" debit card does.

None of which gets around the issue of a kid "borrowing" a parent's credit card for a few minutes so they can record the numbers for later use in online ID verification, which would go completely undetected by the parent if there is no transaction logged. Even then, I expect there are a lot of adults that don't meticulously go through their statements and account for each transaction, especially if they use Steam themselves and might just see some token fee as some random-DLC/in-game purchase they made themselves.

Honestly, just stop passing the fscking buck. This is a *parenting* issue, not one for the government and legislature who haven't a clue how to set or enforce rules that the industry has any realistic hope of implementing with any high degree of success. My 10yo niece, who has had a pre-paid debit card for over 2 years now, was explaining to me the other day how she'd downloaded and installed ProtonVPN (she'd obviously done some homework on selecting Proton too!) on her tablet so she could get around geoblocks to stream some US TV shows that are not available in the UK yet. If kids want to see porn or play smutty games they are going to find a way, even if that's sneakernet, and it's up to the adults to make sure they are prepared and can deal with it properly when they do, not pretend it doesn't exist, the kid is still totally innocent, or it is someone else's (read "government") problem.

Which kind of makes me wonder, what happens to the Republican Party when Trump croaks given they've now thrown out pretty everything they previously supposedly stood for (third term or no, his hold over the party won't end while he can still type semi-coherent sentences)? He's pushing 80 and that is really starting to show, so behind closed doors they've got to be thinking about it. Do they turn to Don Jr., who doesn't seem to have a particularly high profile, and try to revert the US to a defacto monarchy, turn to some other prominent Trumpist, switch to Elon Musk's new party (if it ever gets off the ground), or pretend the last decade-and-change never happened and try to reset back to the GOP of the GW Bush era?

Like post-Putin Russia, I'm not really seeing many good options here, for anyone in the blast radius. In both cases, I suspect it's going to make "Succession" look like some toddlers having a squabble over who gets to have a go on the swing next, and nearly everyone is going to have to deal with some of the fallout...

I did wonder about going there with a Soylent reference, but we're a *long* way from that point. We have the capacity to grow and distribute food to a population at least a few billion more than we have at present, and chances are we'll hit peak population before we get to that point anyway; it's only wasted edible food, distribution inefficiencies, financial greed, and politics that still allow people to starve.

Besides, the latest legal right starting to spread around the world is "assisted suicide" which, in principle at least, I can agree with for the terminally ill (there are a number of currently untreatable medical conditions I'd definitely want not to suffer through), given suitable safeguards. However, it's also a slippery slope that is absolutely going to get abused to remove some of the perceived dead wood within the population, and most likely that is going to be in a way that will help smooth out the old age heavy demographic curve.