It's too convenient to just write off Jobs. The truth is somewhere in the middle, as it always is. The idea that plenty of others could have done what he did is just too dismissive. When he died the company was worth a third of a trillion dollars. Not just any sociopath can pull that off.

The problem you get though is what I call the "California Cancer Warning Problem"
Basically, people can only pay attention to so many warnings. The more often people get false or trivial warnings, warnings where they have to continue to get things done as standard, the more likely they are to just plain ignore the warnings.

While hackers might be able to figure out a way to do something malicious without triggering the warning, the warnings back then were worse than useless, because they not only triggered for just about every document, users by default could not assess the document for safety without enabling the scripting. IE I couldn't by default open the document and look at the scripts to assess them (and some of them were only like a dozen lines) without enabling them.

Saying the warnings were necessary also ignores that there have been exploits that didn't even require opening a document to cause infection. Preview was enough.

Basically, if the hackers figured out something clever, just add that to the check. It would still be a better situation than what we had back then.

Philips and Bell had executives who had come up through the ranks, knew their industry, and intended to stay with the company long term. Today's executives are uniformly MBAs and lawyers who have spent their entire careers hopping from one job to another in a game of 'Executive Musical Chairs', bumping up quarterly profits with short term fixes to ensure their bonuses, hoping to not be in the corner office when the music stops and the results of their bad decisions tanks the company. What interest do they have in long term investment when by the time it bears fruit someone else will be reaping the benefits?

When my wife started working at Target the CEO had started on the sales floor three decades earlier, by 2010 there wasn't a single person in the executive offices who had ever worked at a low level retail job. The entire company was being run by people who had no idea what the employees who kept it functioning day to day actually did, and the decisions coming from Minneapolis showed it.

For their money, large companies want the proverbial throat to choke - even when they've never successfully choked the throats they've paid for. The footprint of open source in these companies often grew through bottom up implementation. The moment that somebody has to pay an ongoing support contract, it will become a financial and strategic decision. That means vendor management, tech and vendor downselection, risk analysis... the best-effort maintainer isn't going to fly.

If I were a betting man, I think the result would be a decline in usage - and that might be fine. If the model isn't working, that definitely needs addressing. But the companies most able to afford licensing are probably the ones least likely to pay for it.

I put an awful lot of the blame on the introduction of the 'Business Ethics' courses in the '70s, and the flood of MBAs with no real-world employment experience in the '80s. When you have guys that have never worked a day in their lives (and six figures of debt) coming in to manage businesses about which they know little to nothing, having been erroneously taught that their one and only duty is to enrich shareholders, it's a recipe for disaster. Then combine that with executive pay plans hyper-focused on quarterly returns, and the resulting meltdown was utterly predictable and unfortunately unavoidable.

Don't care. If your shit shows me ads, it's not getting into my kitchen. Note to self: Don't buy appliances from Samsung anymore.

Yes, I am vocal in how much I hate ads. I believe the CEOs of advertising companies should get one hit with a stick for every time their ad bothered someone even in the slightest.

Exactly what I'm saying.

The fact that users and enterprise customers are not demanding better software from Microsoft with the same fervor their ancestors demanded that the witch be burnt speaks volumes.

And I'm specifically talking about operating systems here. Software can crash for all I care. I'm fine software quality being all over the place, the market can sort that out. But operating systems are natural monopolies and the foundation for everything else. We should not accept shoddy quality there.

Yup. I know teachers whose districts have all sorts of "safety" controls in place for computers the kids use; all that does is make it harder for teachers to go to sites they use and are approved while the kids access porn and anything else they want. The stupid get caught, like the one that thought it was a good idea to print the porn on the schools printer...

Anyone can click yes a question, or put in a fake birthdate. Scanning a drivers license would work, but not everyone has a license and using someone else's or a fake one (depending on if it uses a barcode) is pretty easy. So, how do you really effectively?

Oracle issued an out of band patch to fix a CVE. Nothing about that points to wider issues. Microsoft issued a patch to fix a buggy patch which followed another buggy patch. It has the marking of Monty Python's "We have sacked those responsible for the sacking."

I’d argue that slavery wasn’t “legal because nobody banned it.” It was legal because there were explicit laws that created, defined, and enforced the institution.

There were statutes specifying who could be held as slaves, rules that the child of an enslaved woman was automatically a slave, procedures for manumission, regulations on how slaves could be bought, sold, punished, or inherited, and laws requiring that escaped slaves be returned. That’s not a legal vacuum, that’s a full legal framework.

It’s similar to how segregation laws later forced discrimination on people who might not have engaged in it otherwise. The state wasn’t passively allowing something; it was actively mandating and structuring it.

Slavery existed because the law built and maintained it, not because the law failed to forbid it.

I remember those days where it would warn if there was any scripting at all, rather than look for dangerous commands first.
Just as a thought, not bothering if the script cannot reach outside of the document itself. Functions that access other files or documents, email functionality, and such triggering the warning instead would have been more effective.

You're holding you wrong. Congrats on your relative positive baseline perception of life. Next, tell people with chronic fatigue about what energizes you, those with diabetes about the "natural sugars" you consume, and those with paraplegia about the pleasure you get from thought experiments.

Pro tip for Amazon or any sales link: Immediately re-sort reviews by time. Interesting how this one had a middling review recently and ~40 5-star reviews without comments within a couple months of the book's 2024 release.

Clicking on it it is not the goal,seeing it is so that the product registers in your mind. Clicks are just a bonus.

Doesn't work that way at AWS. All anyone in the company sees is a blob of encrypted bits to which they have no access unless the customer shares the key with them for some reason. If they have to move the data from one location to another or back it up they have to do the entire blob (that's what the data techs refer to it as, a "blob"), they have no ability to see what's in it. It's not like your local drive where the administrator can take ownership and view whatever they want. Go to AWS with a court order and they'll have to hand over the entire encrypted blob.