imagine how many more thousands they could save by replacing 200k in toy computers with a real datacenter platform.

Yeah, and none of those or even the sub-$400 new laptops are worth buying when $150 5yo business laptops are available.

It's doubtful that Apple will create anything worth buying in the ~$500 market given the ~250GB storage on their $900 macbook air

Yeah they're whining here about this but they throw captchas relentlessly at those of us on standard net configs too. I would say its even more likely to get a robot accusation on desktop than a doublenat mobile session.

He's gotta leave us guessing because like other competitors MS has bought and killed countless studios and the games they produced.

They're also never actually free on the scamazon store, it's just a subscription that you don't ever own.

It's coming to light due to the private equity buyout lead by esteemed real estate criminal Jared Kushner. This is likely anti-woke washing to entice a class of customers who have already moved along due to EA sucking for lots of other reasons which won't be addressed.

Why solve real problems intentionally created due to mismanagement when you can just play the culture war card and get a bunch of knee-jerk reactions?

unlikely it will be good for much with less than 1GB memory available. Should be a good reminder that true personal computers are still available and at only a modest cost premium.

The problem is youtube/google is claiming they practice moderation but they don't. Even after content is reported for being illegal like in this case it gets to stay. Instead google is using moderation as an excuse for practicing editorializing instead which wasn't the intent of 230.

I'm curious what you think "unaffiliated" means, since whatever nefarious party is stealing Steve's likeness is definitely posting content on youtube.

The AP article added the context of the joke, which didn't make it funny but subjectively I would agree that it was non-serious. One does not passively say "kill all x" after accused of being one of x in a group chat with friends because she is serious.

A manual review and some minor counseling would have solved this problem, but apparently nobody in a position of leadership understood the point of this software.

They likely poisoned the courts against them with so many fraudulent takedowns and filings. The same people behind those organizations are probably just reorganized around some other fictional entity.

Better yet throw them in jail without an opportunity to speak to their lawyer or friends/family. It's too optimistic to think that these cockroaches will be removed from positions of authority, but we can at least give them a dose of their own medicine so they can see how harmful it is.

Just as likely that she was the one being bullied. IDK why you would assume that an incompetent software package being implemented wrongly by a public district would have been correct. This claim that it was all done automatically without any human intervention is also just wrong. There's no way to perform an arrest without the officers involved making a determination of probable cause.

"Hurr durr, computer said you're guilty" isn't a defense.

You don't have to build a new school every time there's a shooting, that's just done to protect the guilty.

I've generally preferred to pay people a salary, when reasonable to do so.

I hire(d) people (I still employ some people directly) to do a job. So long as the job was done properly, I'm not a big stickler when it comes to spending time at work. If the job can be done in 4 days, so be it. My concern is that the work is done on time and properly. It's also not important to me how they did the work, so long as it was done right.

I'm all for a 4 hour work week, so long as their wages match what they'd make for a 40 hour work week. Yes, minimum wage is too low. Then again, I'd never consider paying someone the least amount I could pay them by law. That's just a kick in the proverbial nuts and pretty damned degrading. "I'd pay you less, but the law won't allow it."

My house was built before CAT6 came out. It should be easy to upgrade as everything runs through in-wall conduit. I figured I'd do that for future-proofing.

I've not really seen a need to upgrade. It works well enough and there are jacks in most rooms. I also don't have the bandwidth to make it matter much, though fiber will be here before too long. Upgrading then may matter. (Fiber wasn't going to come up my road, but I contacted the company and a couple of neighbors and I will pay for the fiber to be run.)

Cat5e should still be fine. I'm not going to bother paying for full GB service, as I don't need that much bandwidth. I'll be fine with half of that and CAT5e should be viable.

This is about the 'inadequate' comment you made.

I could see it being inadequate for some people. As for me, it's still holding up and still fit for purpose. I've lived in a bandwidth-impoverished area for going on two decades. So, my needs, perhaps better said expectations, are different. I don't even see a reason to go full boar on the GB speeds. As I am technically a business, they say I can request even higher speeds. I'm simply not interested in that.

Then again... We'll see how I feel after a few months. I may end up wanting to splurge and increase my speeds. It could happen.