efdee

C# had async/await long before Javascript/node. Not that big a revelation ;-)

The people destroying the seeds are not the ones building the vaults.

Nowhere does anyone claim that "let's go" means "you should let us go". The discussion was whether "let us go" automatically means "you should let us go", which it does not.

Maybe as far as you are concerned, but not as far as the law is concerned ;-)

You can't always replace "let us" with "let's", but you can always replace "let's" with "let us".

"Let us go" does not only mean "you should let us go" but it is also the first person plural imperative implying that we go. Whether you shorten it to "let's go" or not does not change this.

Same as how "let us pray" is frequently used as well.

Let literally means a lot of things, one of them being "allow us to". But that is only one of many of its literal meanings.

True, but the point was not that they were asking permission, it's the "let us do this together" meaning to which the OP takes offense. He feels like it implies he cannot do it on his own.

You have a point. But on the other hand you have no idea of what tools the intruder possesses, only (at best!) what they used.

I think intent probably matters a lot more than the technicality of how you succeeded.

Breaking in in a system, whether or not the password was easy to guess, sounds like a crime to me.

I can't think of any situation where "let's" does not mean "let us"?

Same for Explorer, really. The SMB hosts that announce themselves show up in the sidebar.

But what if we hire nine women instead of just one?

I think you're confusing Microsoft and Apple. :-)

I used to, but I don't consume enough YouTube videos anymore to make it worthwhile. Give me a top-up plan that I can use to pay for individual videos and I will definitely do it.

But what's with the weirdly aggressive second part of your message?

Weird. I'm pretty sure that deciding whether or not to watch ads is entirely my choice.

I'm very much willing to pay for their content, but not in the way of watching ads during the videos.

From the same rules: "Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did."

But not having to dual boot and just get both worlds at the same time definitely beats having to dual boot.

What marketing?

They didn't "forget" to lock the door that one time. They just never lock it. The guy yelling it out loud is pissing off all the people who already knew you didn't. He is not the one to be angry at.

Remind me what the 30% markup is for, again?

Strange wording. You are the one that put tens of thousands of your users at risk. Not the one who discovers the problem.

Like you say: "for better or worse".

FWIW, I haven't ran antivirus software on Windows (other than the included Defender, but that's not something I think about) in literally decades.

What are you saying here, though? That Microsoft should have the monopoly on deciding what software is safe and what is not?

THANK YOU.

> I had to run a debloater on my system

Hot take: your ""debloater"" screwed up your system.

I've had problems with Windows, but none of the ones you've described.

> For the average user this experience sucks. But for me, I'm okay.

I guess this describes my Windows experience. I _know_ some people have problems. I don't, because I guess either I got used to it or I know how to avoid it.

Sounds like an AVG problem, not a Windows problem.

Diabetics have a sensor on their bodies that speaks Bluetooth. It talks to their phones (running eg. xDrip). The phone then communicates this to the watch.

My wife is a diabetic and this kind of stuff, while it seems minimal, makes a big difference for her quality of life.

> They have other things to do with their time than learn about security vulnerabilities and how to avoid them.

You're making that statement as if iPhones don't have security issues and people using Android definitely have to learn about those things.

> They want to just click 'yes' on every popup and expect things to keep working. Because they know that they are not qualified to answer that yes/no popup question. And those people do not care much about lock-in and walled gardens.

What exactly is it that Apple does that makes it not matter whether you click 'yes' or 'no' on these popups?