Let's just say they're amortising the purchase price of the 200 Mac minis over 3 years.
How much were they spending on cloud-hosted machines? For them to be not just breaking even, but saving $2.4M, they must have previously been spending more than $2.4M over 3 years.
Split across 200 machines, $2.4M is $12,000 per machine. Over 36 months this is more than $330 per machine per month.
When the cost of a base model Mac min is $599, this doesn't add up. Even the most expensive M4 Pro Mac mini with a 14-core CPU, 20-core GPU, 64 GB unified Memory, 8 TB storage and 10Gb Ethernet is only $4,699.

Even if they're getting the big brother of the mini, the Mac Studio, it still costs less than $12,000 for an M3 Ultra with 32 CPU cores and 80 GPU cores, 512 GB unified memory and 8 TB storage (total cost $11,699)

They're not forced to move to Microsoft 365 as I'm guessing that they won't have deployed Office Online Server anyway, they will have the native desktop apps installed instead.

I remember the days when people were talking about Compu$erve.
The problem is that I want a full and intelligent discussion that can stand on its own merits without resorting to name-calling. If you have a valid argument (and there are plenty of valid arguments against TPM) then It's just not necessary to get the point across.

It's hard to take someone seriously when they can't even use the proper terms for things they are talking about.

Sure, you may not like what a TPM is and what it does, but to call it a "Treacherous Platform Module" instead of a "Trusted Platform Model" shows me that you need to resort to name calling just to try and get your point across. Similarly for people who refer to "Micro$oft" or "Winblows", look, I get your point, but you're talking about technical things where correctness matters. At least use the proper name for something and then tell me in a clear and concise fashion exactly why it's no good.

iOS is not BSD.

iOS is the Mach microkernel with FreeBSD APIs and mostly FreeBSD userspace binaries.

iOS is a Unix-like operating system, based on macOS.

macOS is an honest-to-goodness Unix.
https://www.opengroup.org/open...

There are plenty of American traditions when interacting with others that to the rest of the world seem moronic.
For example: having employers legally permitted to pay front of house staff less than the minimum wage because you, as a patron, are expected to volunteer a tip to make up the shortfall.

Yes, I fear this is the future we have ahead of us.
Hopefully (ha!) Apple Silicon machines will have more uniform capabilities across generations so that older hardware can be supported for longer (wishful thinking, I know)

Yes, this will become more and more of an issue as time goes on. At present there are only two Macs with a T2 chip that are not supported by macOS Sequoia – the 2018 MacBook Air and the 2019 MacBook Air.

It's weird however that this issue doesn't seem to affect all Macs with T2 security chips, so hopefully there will be a workaround by the time more Macs drop off Apple's supported list:
https://github.com/dortania/Op...

Bluesky already has verification - you can change your handle from @whatever.bsky.social to anything you want, as long as you own the domain name for it.

So, cnn.com has the handle @cnn.com – and unless an attacker was able to take over the cnn.com domain name to verify their handle, this is a pretty iron-clad guarantee that the @cnn.com account is run by whoever owns the domain name.

This can be further used to verify individuals - e.g. a company could run @example.com and then their staff could have their own subdomain handle – I could be @PhunkySchtuff.example.com if I worked for them and needed to post under my own name.

No mention of one of the most useful projects of them all for keeping older Macs online – OpenCore Legacy Patcher.
https://dortania.github.io/Ope...

OCLP lets you install newer versions of macOS (possibly versions that are still receiving security updates from Apple and can run current versions of apps like browsers) on older Macs that Apple have officially dropped support for.

It won't let you, for example, run arm64 code on an x86_64 machine or anything crazy like that, but it will let you run much newer versions of the operating system than Apple will let you run on older hardware.

Yeah, I always found Freehand to be far more intuitive for creating artwork from scratch. Illustrator really seemed back-to-front – and I'm not sure exactly what it was that made it that way, but it just didn't click with me. I used Illustrator heavily for editing EPS files and tweaking things for prepress, but for actually drawing things, Freehand was a lot better.

I've been using Adobe apps in one way or another since the late 90s. I started out with Photoshop version 4, Macromedia Freehand and Quark XPress and as the competition died out, shifted my workflow over to pretty much all Adobe.

I've recently taken a stance and I'm trying to shift myself away from using anything Adobe related – the one thing of Adobe's I will still continue to use is the free Acrobat Reader app as there are still some PDFs that require an Adobe app to open them in.

While it's not ever going to be a drop-in replacement, the Affinity suite (Photo, Designer and Publisher) all easily cover the 78-80% of the respective Adobe apps that people use 90% of the time.

Yes, there's a learning curve to bring yourself up to speed. Yes, there are things that you can only do in an Adobe app, but there are now fewer and fewer features that are exclusively Adobe.

If you have the time to learn a new suite of apps, with new shortcut keys and limited interoperability with Adobe apps (i.e. you're not expecting to launch Publisher and work on an InDesign document as if it were the native app, but instead you start a new project and work with the Affinity apps from scratch) then you're a long way into ridding yourself of the continually increasing price of an Adobe subscription with a one-off purchase for a perpetual, multi-platform licence.

“It is a well known fact that reality has liberal bias.”
  Stephen Colbert

... but her emails!

Even if an object is too small to see with the naked eye, or even a microscope, depending on how many photons it's pushing out it may very well be visible when it's lit up.

Take stars in the night sky for example. An un-illuminated object that far away is way, way too small to be seen with the naked eye, or even a powerful telescope, however as it's generating an astronomical amount of light, we can still see the photons many billions of kilometres away.

With something like this, you could make an array of them with quite high pixel density, but as the individual pixels are so small, they would be invisible unless they're lit up.