This is not even vaguely close to true, although classic MacOS was designed like security didn't matter. All of these operating systems were built after the invention of the computer virus and two of them had security baked in. The third required two antivirus programs for relative safety (gatekeeper and disinfectant) because it had no security, which was always stupid. The modern MacOS is descended from an OS where security was understood to matter. The state of the art in computer security was simply undeveloped compared to what it is today.

When China demanded that vendors operating app stores bend over completely for fascism, Google pulled out and Apple did not. Thus we knew conclusively that they would rather support fascism than leave any amount of money on the table.

Now we (Apple's detractors on this issue) can see that exactly what we predicted has come to pass. Apple is joyfully assisting with oppression anywhere they can do so. To them, government demands for totalitarianism are irrelevant, because Apple sees no problem with forcing users to behave a specific way for their benefit to the detriment of their freedom. Why would they see government oppression in any other way than simply the terms under which they must operate in order to maximize profit?

Corporations never have qualms about bad behavior, but sometimes the people who operate them do. This appears not to be the case for Apple.

Does it actually bog down a reasonably-speced computer? I don't think it does, I think the sluggishness is just from the sheer volume of stuff that has to be downloaded, and the inefficient way it's downloaded. And the reason the web devs don't notice the awfulness is (a) their browsers have 98% of it cached and (b) they have a GigE (or 10 GigE) connection to the server. They certainly don't have computers faster than your M4.

I think you didn't understand what this feature is. It's pretty much the opposite of annoying, and it has no effect at all on bandwidth consumption. Though I suppose when devs get used to their sites seeming to load faster they'll bloat them up even more...

Oh no, there is no victory. Your summary is pretty good here. But the idea that Linux is provably less secure because old bugs were found is flatly wrong. They were found late, but they were indeed found. How many ancient bugs are lurking in proprietary software that nobody has found for positive reasons and made full disclosures of so affected parties know they need to mitigate? Nobody knows!

Server OSes are more likely to have older versions of software and then backport fixes. Desktop OSes are more likely to default to doing automatic updates, or at least hassling the user to do them.

I was hoping at the bottom of the article it would say that Professor Utonium accidentally added Chemical X.

The fines should be proportional to actual damage caused (ie: 100% coverage of any interest on loans, any extra spending the person needed to do in consequence, loss of compound interest, damage to credit rating along with any additional spending this resulted in, and any medical costs that can reasonably be attributed to stress/anxiety). It would be difficult to get an exact figure per person, but a rough estimate of probable actual damage would be sufficient. Add that to the total direct loss - not the money that went through any individual involved, and THEN double that total. This becomes the minimum, not the maximum. You then allow the jury to factor in emotional costs on top of that.

In such cases as this, the statutary upper limit on fines should not apply. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that laws and the Constitution can have reasonable exceptions and this would seem to qualify.

If a person has died in the meantime, where the death certificate indicates a cause of death that is medically associated with anxiety or depression, each person invovled should also be charged with manslaughter per such case.

The only difference is that servers are more likely to have more outdated software.

Love of convenience, I guess. I often find it astonishing myself. The software might do 100 times more but it takes 1000 times as much memory...

How granular would the permission be? If web browsers start blocking all animation and post-load layout shifting by default, including CSS transitions and animations, this would encourage website operators to structure the page to coerce permission to animate in each document. For example, a website operator could make each page load blank other than a notice to the effect "Tap or click to view 'Title of Article' on Name of Site."

In my experience on laptops and tablets, I've found the exact opposite (eager loading) helpful in some situations with limited or no data. I would download an entire page on unmetered Wi-Fi, go offline, and read while riding as a passenger in a car or bus.

I sincerely doubt that 14,500 USD per year (full-time minimum wage) is near enough to pay for income tax, rent, food, health insurance, and a round-trip taxi ride every weekday in most of the United States. I'd be interested to read examples of budgets that you have in mind.

Linux underpins the internet. It's the primary server OS on the planet. High-value data is held on Linux systems. The idea that it's not profitable to attack those targets is silly. They're harder to attack. People still do it. That's why there are still ssh port scans for example.

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.