I use AirBNBs as locations to produce adult content. I'm not joking.

An AirBNB is perfect for my needs; it's a literal godsend. I want a clean home-like setting that is relatively generic and free from personal items, that also doesn't look like a hotel and can be unique for the amount of content being produced there. I believe this is a relatively common practice.

That being said, I bring my own bedding, towels, pillows, cleaning products and tools and I take my trash with me when I leave and dispose of it elsewhere. I am conscientious that I'm staying at another individual's property.

In one case, I found out the property owner was still home, in his basement, while I was working with performers upstairs. He wanted to know what we were doing and didn't actually have a problem with it, but talking with him informed what I should do going forward. Even if I wasn't responsible for messy human activities, I'd still choose to leave as little work as I can for service staff.

I realize that many AirBNBs are owned by property management services and in some cases even hotel groups, but what I'm paying for is exactly the thing I want: clean and not-a-hotel.

You know you don't have to install Adobe Reader, right?

FWIW, I had an interaction with the person responsible for PDFGear online somewhere and I've been using it since I found out about it. It's a free (gratis) PDF viewer and editor. Maybe the full, paid Acrobat product can do more things, but if so I haven't noticed.

The thing you are looking for is the Group Policy Editor. There are Group Policies that can disable the prompts to use Microsoft accounts and the ability to use OneDrive or Windows AI features, the hook Bing has in Windows Search (i.e. no more searching in the start menu and having it list web sites before the file or application you wanted) and all the "consumer experience" features in non-Enterprise Windows. There are a few GPO settings that get ignored unless you're on Windows Enterprise or Education. Most of them related to Microsoft Datamining.

It is also possible to transition a Microsoft account back to a local one without losing your Profile. This is done in Settings > Accounts > Your Info in Windows 11.

gpedit.msc is normally only available to non-Home Windows SKUs, but it is unlockable with a tiny bit of Powershell:

Get-ChildItem @(
        "C:\Windows\servicing\Packages\Microsoft-Windows-GroupPolicy-ClientTools-Package*.mum",
        "C:\Windows\servicing\Packages\Microsoft-Windows-GroupPolicy-ClientExtensions-Package*.mum"
) | ForEach-Object { dism.exe /online /norestart /add-package:"$_" }

Open an Administror-elevated Powershell or Terminal session, paste that in and even your $200 Acer vomit-grade notebook can work the way you want it again.

The reason we need GPOs for this stuff is that Microsoft's software updates will occasionally re-set registry changes. If the changes are made with GPOs, the settings get reapplied and overwrite changes no matter what state Windows is in. This is particularly annoying for stuff like OneDrive, CoPilot and Edge preferences. You either have to regularly re-run scripts to alter the registry to the state you like it and hope nothing makes a structural change to where those settings live, or you set a GPO.

I mean it's a cut and paste of three lines of powershell.

I wouldn't call the ins and outs of operating gpedit.msc trivial, but enabling on Windows Home is a couple clicks and maybe six key strokes.

I really do agree.
I maintain system images as part of my job, but it always made sense for me to extend that to individual devices since I am asked to help with them anyway. For me, this has been just adding a tweak here or there that grew over time. GPOs for Windows Home didn't become standard in my image management until Microsoft started inflicting Onedrive on everyone. Now I view it mandatory.

For what it's worth, I have a similarly long list of things I do when I configure a Linux system or MacOS. I definitely have to do the most arguing with MacOS since I hate some of the OS default software and Apple has a long history of breaking things that should be scriptable.

You can exclude them from installing through an autounattend.xml (see Schneegans.de for help building one) and prevent them from display via a GPO. You really want to use a group policy object because otherwise a Windows Update might put them back; it'll override a plain old registry change or user preference any time it wants but GPO changes persist.

It is trivial to restore Local Group Policy editing on Windows Home SKUs with a little powershell.

Get-ChildItem @(
        "C:\Windows\servicing\Packages\Microsoft-Windows-GroupPolicy-ClientTools-Package*.mum",
        "C:\Windows\servicing\Packages\Microsoft-Windows-GroupPolicy-ClientExtensions-Package*.mum"
) | ForEach-Object { dism.exe /online /norestart /add-package:"$_" }

Some GPO settings are ignored outside the context of Windows Education or Enterprise SKUs, but most of those are related to user behavior data mining. I can verify that if you're just trying to supress OneDrive, Bing Search and Microsoft Account sign-ins, those are all maintained just fine even on Windows Home.

It's highly unlikely that anything you'd do in the course of normal desktop use would make much of a subjective difference from a SATA SSD to an NVMe drive. Most sustained IO operations don't take so long that you'll realize the difference. I can tell when I'm copying 30GB files from my camera card or doing full database dumps, but for just loading up a game or booting an OS? They're subjectively almost exactly the same experience.

That being said, there is such a thing as a cacheless drive. SSDs used to have a certain amount of DRAM or SLC NAND as a faster intermediary interface for storage. Low-cost drives might not have THAT, and that seriously reduces the utility of the SSD in the first place, especially on no-name drives. Those guys are sometimes no better than mechanical drives. Since your system is a refurb, it's possible they did just stick a POS drive in.

Depends on the terms of their contract. If you believe the summary, then doing anything with the county's data other than serve it to them for the intended purpose is against the terms of their contract, which would make it actionable.

Audacity has been on a very long journey to modernize itself. It wouldn't shock me to learn that they shipped it with functions that are being most widely used or easiest to carry over just to get over the hurdle of getting a major release out the door. It's a beloved tool; I know a bunch of people for whom it's a production linchpin, and I think the developers working on are aware of the number of edge cases where only some tiny fraction of their users make use of a feature. Those people can stay on version 3 for now.

IIRC, a lot of what needed to happen with Audacity was an overall change in user interfaces, which required a lot of deep thought about how people interact with the application. It may be that some of the unhandled features just don't align with the current user experience.

And the ROI is really, really impressive. Each dollar in the NIH budget gets returned as about 5 (depending on the study) in increased GDP. To my knowledge, there is no other billion-dollar scale investment that has consistent, long-term returns like that.

Congress knows this fact. They commissioned many of the studies showing it. It is difficult to believe the Executive Branch is not aware of it. If we really wanted to be America First, rather than reducing the NIH budget, we'd be promoting another run of annual increases with the intent of doubling that allocation in real dollars over the coming decade. Contact your congressional representatives today to advocate for the idea.

He was over-leveraged and didn't manage risk well. In other words, he was a terrible fund manager.

No, the worst part about ads is that they exist at all in a form that intentionally disrupts your attention.

That fundamental issue is then exacerbated by the current societal tolerance for lies, and you get intrusive advertisements that are deeply misleading.

So, why are you tolerating current advertising at all when there are tools that effectively eliminate it?

The assumption is that using your phone / infotainment system to search for, possibly purchase, and play a new release is an attention-demanding task that takes substantial time. The consensus above is that Spotify's UI, in particular, is poor, and thus requires extra interaction, and thus attention off the road, exacerbating the problem. We know that attending to a phone, even briefly, is mutually exclusive to attending to the road. That alone is an explanatory mechanism for the increase in fatalities.

But then we augment that supposition by the additional effects that new music is also a distraction, albeit much lower grade than operating a phone. It might be a lesser effect, but listening to a song or three is also expected to span longer time than interacting with a phone, so might have substantial cumulative impact.

An additional effect that I have not seen mentioned above is the expectation that the demographic listening to top releases is likely to skew younger, and thus contains drivers with less experience than the population. Less experienced drivers are at far greater risk of accidents of any sort, and are more sensitive to distraction.

And, as a parent of teenagers, the solution is clear to me: do not frelling use your phone when driving, period.

From TFOriginalScientificArticle: "Additionally, death certificates included a field for reported usual occupation (the occupation in which the decedent spent most of their working life), generally completed by a funeral director with help from the decedent’s informant."

Looking at Figure 1 from the paper, taxi drivers and ambulance drivers are clear lower-bound outliers in terms of risk from Alzheimer's. But they also die a full decade before the eyeballed mean of the population. There are a couple of data points in the middle plot from that figure that have just slightly higher adjusted risk of Alzheimer's, but have lifespans at ca. 80 years that are well *above* the mean. Regrettably, the paper does not discuss those data points -- me, I'd want to have those occupations since they trade a very slightly increased risk of Alzheimer's for 15 more years of life.

And, then, the bit that's also not in the headline and TFS is that taxi drivers and ambulance drivers have *increased* risk of other forms of dementia, especially taxi drivers.

Also, disappointingly, the paper does not show the full ranked list of occupations (even in the supplementary data), highlighting only a small handful (taxi drivers, ambulance drivers, bus drivers, airline pilots, ship captains, and CEOs).