How would this affect Windows on ARM app development? One problem for Windows the last several years has been x86 hardware not being able to keep up with ARM based chips when it comes to certain aspects like battery life and sometimes single-core performance. Following Apple's lead, Microsoft has made Windows on ARM mostly compatible with Windows on x86 albeit with a performance penalty using a translation layer. The difference between Apple and MS in this regard is the translation layer for Apple is meant to be temporary until Apple developers fully transition to native ARM apps. How long will MS maintain this translation layer? I don't see them being able to abandon x86 like Apple and I don't see them being able to ignore ARM either.

Until recently Sony made TVs which they have sold off to TCL. In terms of consumer facing products, they still sell a small amount or smartphones, cameras, and car stereos. In terms of manufacturing, Sony makes many electronic components like CMOS image sensors which are in iPhones and Androids and storage (subject of this article).

Silly goose, let’s ask AI for the answer.

The two reasons I can surmise is laziness on Microsoft's part or the more secure setting would interfere with Microsoft goals. For example, every policy that enables telemetry is more data MS can sell.

Oracle issued an out of band patch to fix a CVE. Nothing about that points to wider issues. Microsoft issued a patch to fix a buggy patch which followed another buggy patch. It has the marking of Monty Python's "We have sacked those responsible for the sacking."

Part of it is probably how inconsistent and confusing Windows group policy is designed and phrased. There are so many policies where the setting is not enable or disable with one of those as default. Rather the options are "do not allow" or "not (do not allow)" with the default unclear as to what it does. I swear sometimes the option has to be read as a triple negative.

This data is coming from workplace computers. Users get whatever the company buys and do not always get many choices. Generally business machines are a little better than consumer versions.

Also the major flaw in this plan is whether the assembly is in the US or overseas does not stop backdoors from being loaded.

It sounds like the person behind this does not understand how manufacturing works. If backdoors are being implanted into these routers, it is not some rogue foreign agent assembling the router. The backdoors are most likely designed in the firmware. Somewhere in the assembly process, a worker or machine will load the firmware. The assembly workers whether they are in the US or overseas do not know what is in the firmware. Their job is to load it. Another workers job may be to test the router by hooking it up to a testing machine.

I think the word that has some wiggle room is "consumer". Business grade routers are exempt however I did not read that business grade meant enterprise. There are business grade routers meant for small and medium sized businesses. They cost a little more than consumer grade ones, have better warranties, and most of the time use better parts. I can see a loophole being exploited by the router manufacturers is to launch a new line of business budget models that are basically the same models as consumer ones with slight changes. "It is in a different housing and the we updated [meaningless metric] to double."

And how will requiring the PCBs be manufactured in the US prevent backdoors from being designed in the system. The backdoors are at the firmware level not during assembly.

The problem is the solution is also shortsighted. Rather than target TP-Link routers, all consumer routers are affected. Business routers are not affected. Also making the router made in the US does not actually remove any back doors. The back doors were placed in the design not the assembly of the router.

And the thought never occurred to you the AI gives you code riddle with syntax errors somehow gives you the correct code. It must be my fault. Just like it was my fault that you assumed everything.

Regardless if I need or want help, you think I need help from you. I don't want your help. I don't need your help. You don't accept it when someone say "no" to you, do you?

I think he was talking about casting Orlando Bloom to play a younger Legolas ten years after he portrayed him. It was unnecessary as The Hobbit book did not feature Legolas. It has been a while since I read the book, but I only remember Legolas being mentioned briefly in the book.

The real question is how much studio interference will there be? A reason The Hobbit trilogy was terrible was it was a trilogy. But the trilogy was mandated by the studio. There was simply not enough material to make 3 movies only 2. Another reason was the studio interference drove away Guillermo Del Toro who was originally supposed to direct the trilogy. Peter Jackson had to step in as he was the head of the production company. Instead of years he had to plan for The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Jackson had weeks to prepare for The Hobbit.