Aloha

I believe this is related to known issues with KB5074109

It hit Both Win11 24H2 and 25H2.

You are correct that jobs made a ton of people - and not just wealthy, he created an entire ecosystem around Apple, which made a large number of people vast sums of money.

That last part however.. is not actually true - Fairchild Semiconductor did it, and did it far before Apple did. I'd like to say intel (and a ton of others) did the same thing.

If you're an engineer, you should admire Woz, if you're a product manager or marketeer, Jobs.

Jobs was a brilliant product manager and marketeer - every bit as brilliant as Woz is an engineer.

The truth is, the sharpest engineers struggle to make a marketable consumer product - because they make it for themselves, and while thats quite laudable, however it's generally a tiny market compared to one targeted at normal people.

No, it has a significant amount of light petroleum components (read something akin to Naptha), plus other items meant to displace water.

canola is good for lubricating your paper shredder and very little else.

FIPS is ancient and dates from the era when encryption was unusual and rare. That is why some of it seems so arcane. FIPS 140 didnt even allow software encryption until 140-3, 140-2 required a hardware secure enclave.

Thank you for this cultural explanation - I've experienced the same thing with Japanese co-workers - there is often a "no" but to American ears its so subtle that it often goes in one ear and out the other.

not the OP - That gold is rarer than oil, and the supply is lower when compared to demand.

There is nothing stopping a phone manufacturer from putting a 900 MHz ISM radio in their hardware.

Also, the walkie talkies certainly can legally do data transmission.

At some point it will be concentrated it'll be powder again ;-)

At the time, a lot of them were little more than lipstick on a pig.

It took a long time to actually get to diversity that was beyond token "person of group" inclusivity.

I'm skeptical of that last one.

My dad was a heroin addict, and while he eventually got (mostly) clean, he wryly joked to me once "you know there aren't a ton of old heroin users for a reason"

Using street drugs kills - we can put people on opiates if done in a controlled way, for the rest of their lives, we instead have gone down the road of prohibition, closing off pathways for people to get maintenance dosing of opiates.

The changes to rework windows explorer in Windows 11, have IMO mostly resulted in a net poorer UX, and a net loss of performance.

I'm saying people have a right to choose that, and moreover it's not my obligation as an American to fund overthrowing those regimes, or for that matter make them pariahs for being undemocratic alone.

As much as I dislike it, there are also an acceptable amount of human right abuses before we care, and its somewhere between punishing dissidents and genocide.

Venezuela had economic issues before sanctions due to chronic mismanagement of the economy, which led to a humanitarian crisis causing a mass exodus (which made the economic issues worse).

So I dont think we should but doing regime change - however the ones you cited appear to have broad popular support in their respective lands and are at most minor nuisances to their neighbors - they're also participants in the international community too.

I'll argue that Comet was a good design, but with too many unknowns being solved at once - while we had limited experience with pressurization the comet took more cycles, and had a much higher service ceiling.

I dont think the Comet was a materially worse design than the Avro C102 (both aircraft are similar) and the C102 may very well have had other unknown issues only to be found if it went into series production.

> No. It serves as a defense for people to criticize government. It's why I can insult and talk terrible of president Turnip (spit) and not fear the gulag.

> Theres different ways to protest. Being an obvious target isn't what I do.

How do you reconcile those two statements?

Well, and the first really 50 years of telephony - you were probably as likely to have an uninsulated line as an insulated one.

Remember that the first telephones were 1-wire with a ground return, and that configuration was quite common until the early 40's.

Yeah - though Bell's first apparatus wasn't much better - the invention of the carbon microphone is what really what set the telephone on to being a practical device. The rest of it was trying to build a network to connect people - and that was really hard (and capital intensive).

I think a valid part of the question of who invented something is "who built the first working device" - describing something in theory and building working device are not the same thing.

AG Bell wasn't the first one to conceptually invent the telephone, he was among the first (along with Elisha Gray) in making practical working telephone and later a practical working telephone system.

My point is we (in north america) often seem retain outdated technology because of early adopter problems - be it the T1 vs E1 conversation, how credit cards are processed, all of it. We tend to adopt V1 of a technology and have too much of an installed base to easily adopt the considerably improved V2.

I dont think Starlink can actually make money without government subsidies and a whole lot of inactive users. It simply cannot scale, the width spot beams are limited by physics - they cannot get small enough to get the density needed.

legacy reasons = cultural reasons

Americans are not used to the pin concept.

The legacy reasons are part of why we waited so long to adopt EMV - my belief is that the US had much higher density of credit card adoption which significantly delayed EMV/Chip adoption - to give you an idea, even in the mid 90's a place that didnt take a credit card was an exception rather than common.

I dont disagree with you about interchange rates etc - we should cap them - but as a high earner I'm also going to maximize what I can from that system while I can ;-)

I'd argue we picked it for legacy reasons - Americans are not used to the chip/pin concept, and adopted EMV very late because of a variety of legacy reasons (massive installed base of mag stripe equipment, and systems to deal with the inherent slightly higher fraud).

I think for all of our problems, the US does get this right - we know when to be formal and when to be informal, and its something that is well culturally ingrained - that is the spirit and intent of the rules should be considered as strongly as the actual words.

The issue is old IBM while it had amazing hardware and software, its cost basis was so high that they were wildly uncompetitive in the market. It doesnt matter how good your tech is, if it costs 200% more than everyone else's, you wont find much of a buyer.

I dont know how much employee nationality matters (if it did some of the big tech companies could be thought of as Indian ;-), even though they're American owned).

To me a 'chinese company' is headquartered in china, has predominantly chinese employees, and the amount of its operations in china must be larger than any other single country it does business in.

The ownership of Volvo and Jaguar by Ford is interesting because it effected them differently - with Jaguar it arguably resulted in a significant improvement in quality and reduction of vehicle complexity, Volvo seemed to be less effected by its Ford period than Jag however.

This is really a great point to make - people, so many people say nothing is better today - but if you know the past, and have heard the tales of yesterday, you know better. This is a great example of that.

We've got a kinder more verdant world than our grandparents grew up in, better than our parents, and if we do everything we can, hopefully our children will have a better one yet.

Was Volvo an American car company when it was owned by Ford?

I'd actually argue that Aviation is the outlier among Part 90, Amateur, and Public Safety users. The general rule in most radio services is using both phonetics and not, as to try to balance intelligibility and communications density.