dogslayeggs

Maybe you didn't read my post correctly. Again, using quotes this time, what about my post says it is OK to dox people?

Please point out to me where I said it was okay to dox people. I'll wait....

So your response to feeling possibly in danger by someone calling you by the wrong name is to murder them? That's totally normal and not at all unhinged.

Yes, but there is no technical justification for Spotify to not have real-time, remote access to a database, even if the database is constantly changing. We have had the technology to do that for 25 years. If Spotify is not properly handling the contracts to legally stream content, then some of the fault lays with them. Spotify is basically claiming their defense is ignorance. They can't be held liable because they didn't know what they could and couldn't stream. How is that a legal justification for breaking the law? And Kobalt's reasons for not letting Spotify know is also dumb.

Cases like this are frustrating. Spotify should NOT be able to stream any artist they want without paying them. But the judge said that's OK because the victims waited too long to complain. The judge also said it's totally OK that Spotify doesn't have a list of what is legal for them to stream, simply because the list is constantly changing. This isn't a paper list typed out by some secretary. This is a computer database that can be checked a thousand times a second.

There's also the fact that who was the actual copyright holder was questionable and changed hands during the whole thing, so nobody knew who they should be contracting with.

The point of the sanctions wasn't to end Huawei or slow them down in the market. It was to prevent access to specific technologies for the Chinese government. All companies in China are owned by the government, so all data gathered by companies (either from customers or from suppliers) goes directly to the government.

Also, profitability is a weird metric when a company is financially backed by a government.

I hope enough companies realize the inherent danger to their IP this feature brings. Or that the government realizes the inherent danger to CUI data and forces there to be an admin level lock of the feature so normal users can't just turn it on.

I and many others can't just switch to Linux because we are required to use company laptops/desktops that are admin locked.

You do know that many millions of people are given laptops/desktops for work that have locks that prevent new OS's from being installed, right?

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/it-pro/windows-10/security/threat-protection/security-policy-settings/interactive-logon-machine-account-lockout-threshold

Right there, in plain English directly from Microsoft:

"Failed password attempts on workstations or member servers that have been locked by using either Ctrl + Alt + Delete or password-protected screen savers count as failed sign-in attempts.

The security setting allows you to set a threshold for the number of failed sign-in attempts that causes the device to be locked by using BitLocker. This threshold means, if the specified maximum number of failed sign-in attempts is exceeded, the device will invalidate the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) protector and any other protector except the 48-digit recovery password, and then reboot. "

This is capitalism 101: whatever makes the most money is what they support. It doesn't matter who is hurt (or not hurt), or what is right/wrong. As long as they can make more money than they are losing by lawsuits, they will keep doing this. If they can avoid doing anything at all and not get sued while getting paid by customers, that's even better.

I don't think you're right. Those bullets are: "The following list provides examples of common events that cause a device to enter BitLocker recovery mode when starting Windows:"

Why would entering the Bitlocker PIN too many times cause BitLocker to activate? If you are entering a BitLocker PIN then you have already activated BitLocker, right? Please explain to me why, in your scenario, I would be in the position to enter the BitLocker PIN too many times when all I was doing was restarting my tablet after an OS update.

The last bullet says it also happens when "Exceeding the maximum allowed number of failed sign-in attempts." So even if you are correct that the first bullet is about the BitLocker PIN, then the last bullet is about failed sign-in attempts to Windows.

I like how you keep dismissing someone who is providing evidence by replying with being a jerk instead of giving helpful or factual information. You're dying on the stupidest hill here.

Where is /c/confidentlyincorrect when you need it?

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/operating-system-security/data-protection/bitlocker/recovery-overview

Very first goddamn bullet: "Entering the wrong PIN too many times"