hangonasecond

Not the OP, and I don't actually know, but paid streaming services differ from YouTube in that everyone who accesses the content is paying for the service. On one hand, you can validate that everytime a video is served, it's served to a paying user. On the other, you are receiving revenue directly from consumers to fund the infrastructure to store and serve the videos.

YouTube, on the other hand, stores significantly more content, for free, and can be accessed for free, without being signed in.

Do a retro! Lol

When you pay for enterprise equipment, you are typically paying a premium for longer, more robust support. Consumer products are less expensive because they don't get this support.

Heck even 30 minutes ahead for 1% of devices wouldve had a reasonable chance of catching this

Automatic updates should still have risk mitigation in place, and the outage didn't only affect small businesses with no cyber security capability. Outsourcing does not mean closing your eyes and letting the third party do whatever they want.

That's really unusual. My experience has been the opposite on Linux Mint, most games run the same or better than when I was on windows. I had a little bit of trouble getting world of warcraft to work at first, but I was mostly done playing that anyway. I guess it's all down to what games you play.

Nope, carbon tax is different to carbon offsets. A carbon tax is intended to put an immediate financial burden onto energy producers and/or consumers commensurate to the environmental impact of the power production and/or consumption.

From a corporations perspective, it makes no sense to worry about the potential economic impact of pollution which may not have an impact for decades. By adding a carbon tax, those potential impacts are realised immediately. Generally, the cost of these taxes will be passed to the consumer, affecting usage patterns as a potential direct benefit but making it a politically unattractive solution due to the immediate cost of living impact. This killed the idea in Australia, where we still argue to this day whether it should be reinstated. It also, theoretically, has a kind of anti-subsidy effect. By making it more expensive to "do the wrong thing" you should make it more financially viable to build a business around "doing the right thing".

All in theory. I don't know what studies are out there as to the efficacy of carbon tax as a strategy. In the Australian context, I think we should bring it back. But while I understand why the idea exists and the logic behind why it should work, I don't know how that plays out in practice.

They are almost certainly restricting the amount of information they release under the advice of the legal team at the University, in preparation for the impending commercialization. I agree, it'd be great to have the details and to live in a world where all information is free and open. However, we don't on both counts. The assumption that they could only be attempting to mislead people when this isn't even a product for sale yet, is at best naïve and at worst willfully obtuse.

The snippet quoted in the original comments and referenced in subsequent comments refers specifically to the decibel reduction of the frequencies being targeted by the invention, not the volume of the overall sound.

I feel like there's a level of easy, that's still secure. I used to be the kind of person who used the same password for everything. Now, I've changed that password on everything and I'm particular about using a password manager even for most local uses. But when I'm performing first time set up, I use a variation on that easy to type, burned into my brain old password. It's not incredibly secure, but it's not 4 digits or my birthday or anything of the like.

People moving away from Microsoft is literally how Microsoft will be held accountable though

It'd be a cheaper solution than switching to an AMD card for my gaming pc, which is my current plan. I do want to upgrade from my 2080 anyways, but graphics card are just SO expensive