It's perfectly reasonable a new OS version has higher system requirements. It's just in this case MS is pushing them to ensure manufacturers create PCs that can support certain security features. For example I understand TPM can help enforce boot security and disk encryption key storage. Good stuff to keep secure.

But if they want to throw out their PC and get a new one instead of hardware upgrading (if possible, not always), or even just switching OSs entirely for Linux (free, the only cost is time to learn), that is their decision, but they HAVE a choice, even if they don't want to admit it, or don't want to even research to understand the choice they have.

If you're taking exams in a web browser you can already just plug the questions into Google's website and get Gemini to answer them there. This is just a convenience feature and doesn't change what students actually have access to. Even before AI, if you have access to Google (required for Gemini) nothing is stopping you from doing normal web searching for answers. Nothing is new here, except educators getting cold water splashed on their face as to how technology has been advancing when they weren't paying attention.

That's an interesting link, thank you.
The "nuances or causal factors" do show up -- somewhat -- farther down that report:

Fair. MY point is that I don't trust that source because whomever/whatever wrote it made a logical error.

OK. But copied the quote from where? I can't find a source worded like that.

How is 868 a decrease from 813?

Someone was using those pictures as placeholders as they were not provided with actual camera pictures, and they either forgot to replace them or the real pictures were just added to the mix and the stock photos remained. This is why placeholders have to be explicitly marked as such or otherwise be something nobody would sign off on (I used nyan cat for such things myself).

Something

Oh, it's a good dupe. Some people are telling me it's one of the best dupes.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Please go back and look at the post I originally responded to, and read it carefully, looking at its logic.

They did. They also said IE6 was the last version of IE.

They probably couldn't go through with it. Increasing the system requirements would leave things in a weird state where you and a friend might both be running Windows 10, but yours is version locked because it's can't upgrade to the newest version as the hardware doesn't support it, while your friend can continue receiving updates. It's better to call the new version "Windows 11" to reduce confusion. Which is exactly what they did.

Furthermore, all Windows 10 users received a free upgrade to Windows 11. So it would be difficult to argue that MS' statement is at all relevant to any damage when the plaintiff already had/has a copy of Windows 11 available to them for free.

Windows 11 requires TPM and newer CPUs for security features, they want to make standard. Forcing requirements for these features also forces PC manufacturers to provide them. This makes users more secure over time as everyone upgrades or gets new PCs with Windows 11. I am sure this is what MS will argue (in part, there's a lOT of holes in this lawsuit). Plus MS has focused on security since Vista, and I am sure they will present this as another step in that process of securing their users from threats.

Yep. We all know that quote, and probably most of us agree with it.
There's a huge difference between "a little temporary Safety", though, and an absence of mass shootings.