It makes absolutely zero sense that they wouldn’t give the option to move it. Can anyone give any good reason to have it permanently locked to the bottom?

My argument is that people who do things that can get people killed or worsen a public health crisis should be silenced.

You're arguing for the principle of freedom of speech, but the moment any principle causes more harm than good, that principle should be immediately abandoned. I care about human lives--you seem to care more about blind ideology. That is, by definition, evil.

Sorry, but if your argument is that people who speak the truth the government doesn't want to you to hear should be silenced and government propaganda should be praised then we will never agree. Perhaps you would be more at home in Communist China? That sort of attitude is exactly WHY the Supreme Court needs to defend freedom of speech.

Yes they lied--to avoid worsening the public health crisis. From the POV of the welfare of the population, their lie was the right decision.

Telling the truth is not always the right thing to do. If telling the truth gets more people killed than lying, then you lie--lying is morally obligatory when it saves lives.

These guns in the schools?

I could not possibly disagree more. Mindless obedience to authority in the face of contradictory facts is a massive problem. The government wasn't just wrong; they knowingly lied.

Telling people to ignore government advice in the middle of a health crisis should get you banned. The fact that the advice changed is irrelevant.

There is nothing wrong with banning people for saying things that are true. You can call me an asshole and I can ban you from my house party. Was it true? Yes--I'm an asshole. But it's also my house, so fuck off.

This is my #1 reason for hating it. 15 years I've had my taskbar on the left. Why do they want me to hate it???

That's not how ad serving works. Companies are using Google's platform to target a demographic, just like every other ad.

Lmao what are you sending that you are so paranoid about the government finding out?

"disable" isn't the right word. Microsoft simply won't support Windows 10 at some point. that point are at least 2025 for consumer, 2027 for ltsc, or 2032 for iot.

you can still use it, though. you just won't get security updates anymore.

TBF we had dishwashers in the 19th century - just because the technology is there doesn’t necessarily mean it becomes mainstream quickly.

Microsoft wants to make Windows the equivalent of a 1998 Geocities web page. I use Brave browser to avoid this kind of obtrusiveness. I guess now I need a Brave Windows OS.

wimdows 10 were built on metro design language introduced in 8, it is radically different than aero design from vista / 7 era, as much as fluent design language in windows 11 are "radically different".

you're just accustomed to windows 10.

> Did he or did he not understand when crafting this legislation that Google would never agree to pay to list a site and as a result would de list sites subject to this legislation?

I’m sure he had considered that possibility. But when communicating politically, things tend to get angled a bit.

> And I’m assuming too much by taking him at his word that he didn’t understand this would happen?

Well, it’s politics :p. But I also don’t agree that he couldn’t be surprised even if he understands the issue.

you can just change it back to the left on settings.

This is so true in my school we had to unzip a file for class and the number of people that had no clue how to do that kind of scares me

Is there a story?

what's wrong with TPM 2.0?

That's less data than some people's cat pictures collections.

Posting here for future reference. I do breakdowns on Bills to see what they actually do versus what everyone's saying they do. Considering the nature of this Bill I'm skeptical of anything Google/Facebook/etc and most new agencies say about it. The big companies declaring they're going to stop offering news services are only concerned with money, so one way or the other the Bill is affecting their income and I don't quite trust them to be honest about why.

I'll see about doing a writeup on this one in the next few days and will get back to you once I've gone through just what it does.

Did he or did he not understand when crafting this legislation that Google would never agree to pay to list a site and as a result would de list sites subject to this legislation?

And I'm assuming too much by taking him at his word that he didn't understand this would happen?

[removed]

Genius engineer ripping out servers or car parts that actual engineers put there for absolutely no reason at all.