>"Judge Robert Pitman wrote that the statute "is akin to a law that would require every bookstore to verify the age of every customer at the door"

No, it is much worse. Because it isn't just a store, this is much broader than that. It is more akin to having a mall, and requiring every person to show an ID at the entrance, AND THAT DATA IS RECORDED, and stored, and linked, and shared, and later stolen and abused. AND you have someone follow you around everywhere you go there and take notes.

If you want to protect your children in the mall, YOU GO WITH YOUR CHILDREN and supervise what they have access to. It is not the job of the mall to parent your kids.

I don't want to live in a world where adults have to ID themselves to gain access to websites or app stores. I DO want to live in a world where parents (and their agents) do not allow their children to have unsupervised access to unrestricted, internet-connected devices. Give parents better lockdown and whitelist tools AND promote a new social norm that you can't just give a stock connected phone/tablet/computer to a child and walk away.

You're a deutschbag who RPs as a developer on the internet. You're not a real developer. I'd seriously question the sanity and competence of anybody who says otherwise.

I wouldn't trust the CCP to mow my lawn, let alone drive my car.

If you've ever worked retail, in service jobs, in most offices - pretty much anywhere except in tech - supervision is a necessity. Techies forget that there are a LOT of jobs where you can get away this doing literally nothing unless someone is monitoring you. Thera are also a LOT of people will gravitate to the least effort necessary to draw a paycheck.
 
I get that our industry chafes at 40 hours in the office, and for us it's stupid and counterproductive, but tens of millions of people need someone keeping an eye on them to get anything done.

How so? The only thing it doesn't define is an ABI. But that doesn't matter a whole lot because the language has annotations that allow you to specify the ABI inline.

I don't see an unsafe target in here:

https://doc.rust-lang.org/carg...

Even if you make your own custom build target, there are no compiler flags to disable any safety features. It's just a fact.

... that I was so special (eye roll).

Or, just maybe, you aren't counting everybody, just large companies.

Turn off the RT and the performance would be more than fine. Ultra settings often deliver very little uplift over high as is, but ray tracing is so little of an upgrade for the performance cost that the only reason to run it at all is to justify paying $2000+ for a GPU. I think rat tracing is generally pointless for most games as well. The performance cost is not worth the marginally better visuals and most games don't want hyper realistic lighting because it gets in the way of design and game play. No game can truly be designed for it until the technology creeps down into the mainstream and low-end of the market and we're several hardware generations away from that still.

Ryanair wouldn't care about third parties selling tickets for them if they weren't involved in some kind of fuckery of their own. If they want to subsidize certain routes, etc. to draw in customers that's their own business, but Turing around and getting upset at someone else for trying to take advantage of that subsidy isn't any of their business either. While I don't think they're at all obligated to make it easy or possible for any third party to do that, they could solve the problem completely by not engaging in the sort of behavior that attracts these kind of middlemen in the first place. They can have their cake, but that shouldn't act surprised when someone else tries to eat it too.

The CCP doesn't want anyone else to utilize a system that isn't part of their social credit system. Don't mistake an even bigger control freak flexing its own muscles as a sign of actual benevolence.

My original comment was referring to Microsoft as the anti-trust experts. It was a tongue-in-cheek reference to their history. And their known power and dominance within the corporate space. Point is if they wanted to try and force "Professional" versions of their OS onto some specific hardware (which they happen to currently be all tooled up to make and do,) it sure as shit wouldn't be coming from an unknown place of profit (cough, Apple). And it would eliminate most problems of hardware compatibility and make IT easier with a single platform.

Would they piss off a lot of 3rd party hardware vendors? Sure. But there's always the Home market for them.

And as GenZ's name becomes more "Boss" and "Sir", we'll see what the break room morphs into. The LAN party might be the new smoke break.

I chose a Mac over Windows in 2008 regardless of my Windows needs at the time. Because virtualization. Yeah. I'm well aware of the 5% of fringe cases in business.

Let me clairify once again, to dispel that whole most corporate machines have integrated graphics problem. The Xbox hardware, with great graphics and plenty of power, BECOMES the corporate machine. Running Win12 Professional. For those that wish to be called Professionals at work running an AD instead of those non-professional losers stuck over there in a Workgroup. (Not unlike the “Home” versions before.)

For any large business that does not want Microsoft products today, they often do not have a choice. Microsoft wouldn’t give a choice here either. You want Win12 Pro capable of joining an Active Directory? You’ll buy the hardware with it. Which happens to be, an Xbox. Or technically, you’ll probably lease it.

Dealt with NIST mandates for years. My users accepted it a lot better when we had a passphrase day. The day we make up a crazy passphrase they can easily remember. Do it over breakfast or a pizza lunch. Everyone appreciates it and it turns it into a fun thing to do every few months.

New NIST standards tend to hint at passphrases anyway. Might as well make it a little easier.

Passwords, are dead thinking. Pass-phrases are much easier to convey, much less likely to be compromised, and enable less frequent changes. Otherwise, you’re doing a lot of assuming and babysitting to ensure Password1 hasn't been compromised. Because it sure as shit won’t get changed unless you force it.

Lets see if shareholders like the high-ish returns.

Doubt they’ll be enough to fire next time to bolster it.