I ditched Firefox and Chrome at least 13 years ago and have used Safari exclusively since. In fact, Chrome hasn't ever been installed on this MBP, which I've had for five years. I don't miss their bloating and battery drain, nor having a privacy raping app from Google. I also appreciate the integration with Messages and Mail for how easy this makes 2FA on web sites that send codes, as well as unified keychain and history across all of my devices. That doesn't mean I'm unaware of the current state of the other browsers: I do have FF, which I dabble with occasionally, but it drives me nuts, it's just shit and it's obvious why it's losing market share, and I get forced to use other browsers on remote Windows machines or in local VMs of Windows and Linux.

Mod parent up, this kind of thing is important because it's exactly the kind of research that is making these models controllable for both good and ill. I believe they are already using steering vectors to control Fable use; it's all fun and games til the insurance company turns the 'deny prior auth' vector up a smidge (oh sure, they'll have human rubber-stampers).

The 2013 rMBP can run OS XI, aka macOS 11 Big Sur. There are either a lot of people who didnâ(TM)t update their OS or a large number of very old devices out there, or both. Well, Mac hardware of good and it lasts along time. Yes, I have a Core 2 Duo-based 2007 MBP I still use.

And you Terminal is listed under "Developer Tools" in Privacy & Security? FWIW, mine is also listed under "Full Disk Access".

I'm on an Intel MBP. lldb never requires a password. I only debug command line apps - maybe that's it?

Iâ(TM)m wondering whoâ(TM)s typing passwords these days for elevation. Havenâ(TM)t all Mac laptops had Touch ID for years? I have an external keyboard, but itâ(TM)s still easier and faster to reach over to my MBP for one touch authentication.

I donâ(TM)t get prompted like this. Is this is an extra step in Apple Silicon machines or Iâ(TM)ve just granted more permissions to my terminal?

Oh yes! I remember being at an air show on a small RAF base and a Vulcan did a low-level turning pass with the belly to towards the crowd. It was probably one of the loudest things I've ever heard. Military engines certainly have different priorities to civilian ones.

we no longer live in First World countries where you can rely on the power to stay on

Speak for your country, not the rest of the First World. I haven't experienced a power outage since I left N. America in 2008. Given the lag in grid investment here in the UK to reshape it with all the changes, that might change. But for now, it's been incredibly stable.

Maybe I wasn't clear: Concorde was loud, irrespective of whether the throttle was fully on and afterburners lit, or not.

I'm also glad we don't get any 747s anymore, which were quieter than Concorde. 777s are definitely the ones I've noticed to be loudest these days, especially when planes are coming over every three minutes from 04:30-05:00 in the morning. They're offensively loud compared to the 787s and A350s, and even A380s. But this is a different story.

I think you've downplayed the flight time on a conventional passenger jet for LHR-JFK by an hour at least and exaggerated the Concorde time by 30 mins.

Concorde's prices were determined by a number of factors such as fuel, but one of main ones was exclusivity/privilege.

I've heard this theory too, including from my own father. Maybe that's how it was portrayed in the British media at the time? I can't really find much evidence for it on the internet though. As far as the written history on the Internet goes, it's mostly about the noise. Maybe hysteria about the topic was whipped up for political reasons, but where's the evidence now?

There certainly were bans put in place for political reasons, such as India and Malaysia banning Concorde because they couldn't get the access they wanted in terms of landing slots:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It wasn't just the sonic booms, this plane was just all around loud. It was a civilian plane afterburners! As somebody who lives about 500m directly under one of Heathrow's landing flight paths, I'm happy it's not coming over anymore.

I've always liked this video though. It starts off so quiet, suburban and banal, and then Corcorde roars over and shatters the scene, setting off a car alarm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Of course, there are lots of videos like this one too, also setting off car alarms:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

No, forwarding doesn't work either. For both reply and forward, all you get is the dividing line and the header info of the original message (sender, recipient, date, etc).

Switching to new Outlook works, but then that comes with the bunch of other issues that makes me stick with legacy Outlook. That said, the previous update to this broken one also seems to have resulted in a bunch of missing emails, even after rebuilding my profile in a different folder and verifying that I can see them in new Outlook and in the browser via OWA. An older version of Outlook on a different Mac that can't be upgrade due to it running on Big Sur has no such problems. I think Microsoft just aren't testing legacy Outlook properly anymore and rolling back to known older versions is difficult with their continuous delivery approach (or at least I don't know where to download the installers from for older versions).

You can't switch to an older version? That's what I did with Lightroom when they introduced a bug with GPU rendering.

I'm not going to replace an old but perfectly good Mac so that I can install even newer versions. It's disgraceful that they charge a monthly fee to customers who can't upgrade and won't fix bugs they introduced. Where's the value in that?

It's their pricing model that's killing them more than anything. It made them rich for a bit, but they've successfully pissed off every one of their users in the process.

I live in London. Can you tell me where I apparently canâ(TM)t go?