Microsoft should be forced to provide security updates in perpetuity.

Car companies have to provide parts for decades so should Microsoft.

There's a big difference between "in perpetuity" and "for decades."

Mark my words, they'll end up walking back on the planned (and entirely fake) obsolescence of Windows 10.
I don't share our optimism.

All of these Windows machines that are no longer being updated will be targeted in a huge malware campaign at some point, and it will be a big deal.
I share your pessimism.

My guess is that Microsoft's lawyers and PR department are pressuring the C-Suite to get as many Windows 10 users to do anything OTHER than run Windows 10 without updates, whether that's upgrade to 11, pay for extended support (in cash and in privacy), or bail on Windows entirely (macOS, Linux, etc.).

The bad PR that will come when gazillions of exposed Windows 10 machines are not getting patched will be bad for Microsoft, and it may lead to lawsuits or investigations by regulatory bodies.

By making these kinds of "very affordable" offers, even with unacceptable-to-many terms like "must have a MS account," it will defuse some of the outrage and likely make it easier or faster to win in the courts if anyone tries to sue or if regulators start to complain.

"Once you've built the solar panel, shipped it, installed it, tested it, and paid any tariffs and other taxes on it, the energy is very close to free, assuming the point-of-use is very close to where the solar panels are installed.."

There, fixed that for you.

in "conflicts of interest."

This is a good change of pace.

In the past, he's make bold pronouncements on things he doesn't know much about.

My AI's name is "Your Dragon." You publish an feature-film-length instructional video and you expect me to NOT use it???

It’s still a bot accessing content requested not to be accessed by bots. It’s alsonot identifyingitself as a bot.

See page 41 of Apple's Hard Disk 20 manual.

For Apple's add-on software that made it work on the original Macintosh 512K, go here.

If every person using an AI assistant becomes a mechanical turk for sending data back upstream to the AI provider as a means to bypass robots.txt that's what isn't cool. Local usage for the benefit of that user should be ok, but not the follow on effects.

If the people pushing the "delete" button are doing their jobs right, they will be checking the edit history to make sure it really is "AI slop" and not a human-created page edited later to make it look like "AI slop."

This is frequently the case, but not always.

Sometimes an author will retract his own work if he later realizes it was based on faulty data or a faulty process.

Sometimes a publisher will tighten its standards and retract something that was considered acceptable under an earlier, more lenient standard.

If he'd been doing his work at a better-than-medical-school-graduate-level for long enough to have an established track record, I wouldn't automatically turn him down. That said, I don't think my government allows you to call yourself "doctor" (in the medical sense) without an M.D. or government-recognized equivalent (D.O., etc.).

By the way, most medical doctors in my country go through a long residency, which amounts to on-the-job-training mixed with classroom and practical education. If they learn new skills that didn't exist at the time they were in medical school, they probably learned them "on the job," at a training seminar of some sort or other, or possibly (gasp!) from reading it in a journal or other publication ("self-taught!").

If you said "... because you're more likely to be a stuck up ..." then I would believe you.

If every one of your interviewees has been a stuck up, entitled rich kid, that leads me to believe you haven't interviewed enough people to get a truly representative sample.

On the other hand, the number of people who can graduate with a prestigious degree* without some amount of skills, knowledge, and effort is much lower than the number for Podunk Community College.

* after excluding elite athletes and other "special students" who are "exempt" from the normal you-don't-put-in-the-work-you-flunk-out process that applies to everyone else

If you are a Wikipedia-addict-in-recovery I can understand you saying that, but other than that, I don't see how it could ruin your life all by itself. If you are a Wikipedia-addict, black-holing from your network might be a good 1st, er, post-first-step (the "first step" is admitting you are powerless over Wikipedia...).

If you mean Wikipedia's content about you ruined your life:

If you are a living person, Wikipedia's policies, editors, and overlords generally do a good job of keeping out unverifiable gossip that might ruin your life.

Someone infamous might say "Wikipedia ruined my life" but their life was already ruined without Wikipedia.