I find I can do everything I need with old and OWA, and OWA is only really needed for some SP/group stuff that will probably never make it into "old". I'd switch to Thunderbird, but that's coming up short in some areas too and OWA alone won't make up the shortfall there, so my current approach is the least painful for getting stuff done, no matter how much that chafes. I find "New" to be a confusing and broken mess that is missing several key features needed to interact with other Microsoft systems (FFS!), and have fed that back to Microsoft in no uncertain terms every single time I've found myself switched to it and have immediately switched back using the feedback form they give you. No real idea on the Store version as I've only tried it once in the hope it might do everything I need (it didn't), but I hear that's awful too.

So, yeah, GP listed three products, which are the "local" versions, then there is the OWA version, so Microsoft has four totally different products that use the "Outlook" name by my count. Maybe they employed a former cola exec to lead the product development, or something; throw flavours at the wall and see what sticks? Store seems to be the "Diet" version, so maybe next up will "Cherry Outlook" and "Lime Outlook"... Personally, I really want "Outlook Zero", which will be me uninstalling it for good once I can switch to anything else.

There's also Outlook Web Access (OWA) that you use through a browser. All are borked in various ways, but the cherry on the cake is that most of them have some functionality that at least some of the others do not, especially if you are in an Exchange/Sharepoint/Teams environment where you may need to switch between different Outlooks depending on what you want to do.

Even allowing for the fact they wanted to rebuild "classic" in a more modern framework and shipped before it had anywhere near feature parity, I honestly can't even begin imagine what kind of decision process, or lack thereof, must have gone on in Microsoft to get them to this point...

Lets say you have a trendline for the expected impacts of the changing climate. It has error bars to cover the expected deviations caused by short term weather patterns and, since the variables become less certain the further you go into the future, those error bars get further and further from the central trend line as you go. Typical trend prediction graph for any number of fields, in otherwords.

Now, lets say your worst case error bars for 2026 allowed for a deviation of upto 5%, but when the data lands it's actually closer 10% (not the actual numbers, BTW). I think your comments would pretty much align with those quoted in TFA, and especially so since this is only one year out from last year's known data and the margin of error on the trend line is at its smallest. For those that can't figure it out for themselves, and assuming this isn't just an extreme outlier, what that implies is that the models that many sceptics dismiss as "alarmist" might actually be too conservative and the future trajectory could be *far* worse than even the most vocal of the climate change advocates are saying it will be.

Good news! Someone hacked it into existence.

It's done wonders for my addiction to Win 3.x games.

Similar concerns here, both for F-droid apps and DJI's - which require installing from an APK downloaded directly from DJI to get the latest version. I only have a handful of apps I sideload, and when I'm not updating those I tend to have the ability to sideload turned off for the modicum of additional security afforded against inadvertant user error. If I either need to go through this 24-hour process every time I update the apps, or leave sideloading permanantly enabled (which I'd be more likely to do, I think), then this is yet another user-unfriendly move by Google that is almost certainly more about being self-serving than anything else.

If I wanted a walled garden, I'd have bought an iPhone.

Fraud. I'm talking about fraud.

When I say "destroyed the market for that model" I mean "the short-seller spread misinformation that severely and permanently reduced the value of the vehicles, such as falsifying evidence they were dangerous, from which the brand never recovered."—even if such deception were prosecuted (which, increasingly, under the current administration, it isn't) there is a massive temptation to attempt it, which is amplified by leveraging debt.

That is ideal. Economic growth is not an unqualified net positive for society, and lending is the root cause of most of its ills. With borrowing as it is practised by hegemons today, there are only two endings: either they must close the loop, using the dirty money to architect a revenue-extracting monster that milks non-borrowed money to pay off the debts, or the system collapses under its own weight, like Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme in the 2008 financial crisis. Debt creates its own incentives to abuse the commons and impoverish the public.

Of course, not being content with abusing the commons, there are also implications for abuse of single wealthy lenders, too. It would also effectively outlaw short-selling, since that consists of borrowing assets—the items being traded—then destroying the price, and pocketing the difference. If you think about it, this isn't even adding value to the economy; it's just skimming value off the inventory of whomever you're borrowing from.

If anyone tried this with a physical asset the lender would be apoplectic: "You borrowed 50 cars from me, sold them, destroyed the market for that model, and bought them back at a pittance. Now my inventory of 1,000 cars of the same model is worth a thousand pittances! Why would I ever do business with you ever again?!"—it only works as a system if the lender assumes that the assets will recover value over time, but the degenerate gambler doing the borrowing is incentivised to outright ruin the assets they're borrowing beyond any hope of recovery. In a sense they're even less ethical than corporate raiders, since both the company who issued the stock and the lender are being abused.

In theory slippery slopes are a fallacy, but it's really something else when there are people out there actively looking for slanted surfaces and applying experimental lubricants to every single one they can find.

Yes, Polymarket is the most degenerate, nihilistic, accelerationist bullshit imaginable. At best its creators are willfully in denial about this, since they have tried to ban assassination bets, but more likely they are just trying to maintain a facade of plausible deniability.

In a healthy society, the case of Polymarket would be studied as precedent in an ongoing debate about the possibility of criminalizing the very concept of financial speculation, especially placing a bid with borrowed assets.

"Scathing execration" comes to mind as a possible first step on the evolutionary chain from the latter to the former.

Politicians: How do we stop climate change?

Experts: Reduce consumption, limit abuses by the powerful, instate a carbon tax with teeth

Politicians: Unacceptable! AI, how do we stop climate change?

Every single LLM since GPT-3.5: Reduce consumption, limit abuses by the powerful, instate a carbon tax with teeth

Politicians: Unacceptable! Techbros, how do we stop climate change?

Techbros: FEED ME!

Are you sure you didn't start out talking about Windows?

Bloated and no longer supporting the original hardware on which it was developed. Check

It would need to be as close to like-for-like as possible or people are going to reject the results, so presumably if they've grown rump steak, say, then they'd need to not just compare it with some actual rump steak, but prepare and cook the two cuts at the same time in the same way. The ideal result here for them here is either "lab grown is better" or "can't tell them apart", after which buying decisions should come down to bang-per-buck, and that might even hold if lab-grown isn't quite as tasty, but is sufficiently cheaper to keep it in consideration.

Sure, they could - and probably will - try and stack the deck in their favour. It is marketing after all. But that can only go so far; if they try and compare a premium lab-grown cut with born-and-bred offal, they're going to get called on that and for many people that will mean that they won't get a second chance, ever. Pepsi was a mostly a pure taste test of two otherwise identical fizzy liquids, but food is really about all of the senses so if they really want to sell this and overcome the ick factor, they'll have precut bite-size pieces of meat ready that look the same, cook them on that stand, and let you compare the appearance, smell, texture, and hear the sizzle while cooking as well as taste the samples.

Supposedly, pork. "Long pig" is the literal translation of the word that was used in many South Pacific cannibal cultures and was used by European explorers to refer to the practice.

It needs a version of the "Pepsi challange" blind taste test from yesteryear. I'd certainly take that if given the opportunity, but have yet to find anywhere with the stuff to try in the first place, let alone to do so in a blind test. If it's equally as good as they claim (and the science says it *is* the same, right down to the cellular level), then they shouldn't have any problem convincing people that it's a viable option to regular farmed meat, and if they can do that, then the cheapest option should win in many cases.

I suspect there may be some legitimate corner cases about "free range", "corn fed", and similar dietry or lifestyle things that will have at least some effect on the texture of the meat (e.g. buff animals vs. couch potato animals), but maybe there are ways to replicate at least some of that in the lab too?