From the article:
"The report claims Apple now has over eight million terabytes of data stored on Google's servers. "

I get why they said 8 million terabytes instead of, equivalently, 8 exabytes, because exabyte isn't a well-known unit like terabyte. But it still bugs me.
They could have just as easily said 8 billion gigabytes or 8 trillion megabytes, if they wanted it to make it more approachable.

8.5m fake comments from the broadband industry, 9.3m (7.7 + 1.6) fake comments from the pro-net neutrality crowd.
With both sides of the issue seeming to have been equally fraudulent, it seems unlikely that the outcome was affected.
Only that the final N-counts were overstated.

"Gendered pronouns (for example "he" or "his") become they or their."

"They" is plural, "he" is singular. Where did the other people come from? Isn't it more confusing not to know the number of people being referred to than to possibly mis-state the gender? What happened to the practice of alternating the use of his and her in examples/documentation? I thought that worked pretty well.

Seconded. Other than a mention Windows 95 in the opening paragraph (dare I say, it's click bait?), the story has nothing to do with Windows at all. It is primarily about the possibility and consequences of cyber attacks against satellites.

"Pai's staff said that states and other localities do not have jurisdiction over broadband"

That's backwards. Federal agencies (FCC included) only have jurisdiction over interstate matters, not intrastate. So, the FCC has jurisdiction over the backbone but everything else including the "last mile" hop to the individual subscriber, is within state and local jurisdiction.

But alas, we have yet another case of a Federal agency exceeding its mandate, and states rights continue to evaporate.
If only we could count on the Supreme Court to do its job and strike down bullshit like this.

...and only criminals will have privacy.

> Tyranny of the minority is better?

I'll take "tyranny" of the minority over mob rule anytime.

> Is it time for the Electoral College to reflect the popular vote?

NO.

More importantly, do states rights still matter?

The Electoral College should vote the way the voters have indicated that they should. To do otherwise would betray the trust of the people that voted for them. Ideally we would do away with the Electoral College proxy voting nonsense and have a direct vote. But the Electoral vote allocation should stay the way it is.

A vote that reflects the statistically insignificant difference in the popular vote would send the message that states rights are indeed dead, and that heavily populated states like California and New York are now allowed to dictate policy for everyone else. Yes, Clinton did get a few more votes. But Trump got more states.

Does no one remember "tyranny of the majority" from civics class? Does no one remember why we have two houses in the Congress, one with equal representation per state (Senate) and one with population based representation (House of Representatives)? Do you think it is a coincidence that the Electoral votes per state is the sum of these two numbers?

> what is the best way to explain the need for this policy to colleagues less technically literate?

Secure Boot prevents your boot process from being hijacked. Why would you want to disable that?
With shim and/or preloader and you can Secure Boot any OS that has a UEFI bootloader.

More accidents than expected? Really? Any programmer worth their salt saw this coming a mile away...

Not to rain on your parade, but the linked 'article' is complete and utter tripe. Not only is no proof offered of any wrongdoing, there aren't even any specific accusations. I can't believe any rational thinker would take it seriously. This isn't to say that Obama didn't do (whatever it is he's being accused of), just that there is nothing there that would allow one to make any sort of informed decision.

Hint: just because someone posts it on the Internet, doesn't mean its true.