I know that’s what they are saying, I guess I think they’ll blink when a large percentage of users don’t buy a whole new computer just for a new Windows version.

I’ll believe that they’ll stop shipping security patches when they actually do it. It would obviously be a terrible idea for the reason you stated.

I hope someone will. I hope you do! To be honest, I think I’m too angry to have conversations that might change a mind anymore. Like, I’m angry at them for falling for whatever fake news nonsense that they’re all riled up about, and I actually am not mature enough to keep the scorn and contempt out of my voice.

Of course they’re angry too, and so here we are :p

I belittle conservatives for my own enjoyment, and to laugh at them with my peers. I gave up on changing minds when I gave up on changing my dads, and that was 15 years ago at least (was a gradual decline, not sure when I actually gave up).

deleted by creator

I think they’ve been financially pressured to do these kinds of things since they went public, aka since the beginning.

Shareholders demand infinite growth, and at a certain point the suits look at something like CentOS and think “we’re paying to help people not need a RHEL sub”.

It doesn’t matter though because Red Hat is an independent subsidiary. They make their own decisions, good or bad.

They’ll just cut it for anybody under 60 or whatever, and their base will cheer them on.

He doesn’t care about Tesla. He’ll probably get enough contracts for spacex and starlink out of trump to make up the difference.

He sounds overly sensitive, I wouldn’t worry about it’

Pretty sure he is exactly that though, venal and stupid. Putin bought a president on the cheap.

Lied to yes, but also stupid and arrogant enough to believe it.

Do you reach into the bowl and eat your own poo? Is making unsupported statements followed by question marks a reasonable thing to do?

Well we do have laws against fraud, deceptive marketing, etc. It’s hard for me to imagine what we would be arresting someone for unless it were one of those already illegal acts.

It’s nice to say it should be illegal to take advantage of someone, but who decides if that happened, and by what criteria?

Many states require a separation period before divorce, which means it’s not necessarily for repairing the relationship. That being said, with no plan to actually get divorced, I think we need more details to make any judgment.

They do controlled burns, but the ability to do that safely has been hampered by years of drought conditions. At least Democrats admit climate change exists I guess?

Leaky bucket watered flowers along the path!

That’s typically what you get in return for an investment. The only question is if it’s enough of a share to give control or at least influence.

Oh sorry I thought you had a point that you were trying to communicate! Like, it’s not for me, but for the people.

What a disingenuous deflection! Explain again how we’ll see “more of this”, which might be interpreted as banning harmful substances, so there’s an easy out for you! If only you would or could support your assertions…