No, he's not stupid or a moron.

What he is, is cunning and intelligent along with being amoral, greedy, a psychopath and a narcissist. And utterly evil. He despises existing institutions and wields destruction, chaos, and uncertainty as weapons to further his personal goals. Right now, he knows that the Epstein files are his Achilles heel and he will do anything to keep them hidden: Including going to war.

Do not underestimate Trump.

In New Jersey, they usually dig holes in order to bury bodies. Not necessarily bodies of water.

Prediction: This story will get a lot of off-topic and off-colour comments.

... to Soylent Green.

Has anyone done a deep dive on the EULA yet?

I assume that anyone who even thinks of using this tool has to allow MS to own all copyright, MS can copy and use anything the user creates in the tool in perpetuity, and the author gives up all rights and has to agree to an absolute gag order and mandatory arbitration by a Fox "news" anchor in case of any disagreement.

Microsoft considered harmful...

As I understand it, computer vendors do pay a license fee to Microsoft but they get more money from the peddlers of bloatware to load up their products with crap. So, the bloatware more than pays for the Windows license. That's why vendors resist giving a "refund" for the Windows license, as it actually loses the computer vendor the bloatware money.

I've never had a problem just buying a laptop or PC and wiping the system so I can install Linux: I figure the money I would get from a Windows "refund" would not be worth the effort to obtain it.

You are not the customer: You are the product. Your information belongs to Microsoft. Your computer belongs to Microsoft. If they could get your soul, they would.

As the desktop percentage of Linux increases, the incentives for manufacturers to take Linux on the desktop seriously as customers increases.

Many years ago, I came up with a concept to fix these issues. My concept was as follows:

1) Cars, SUVs, and light trucks used for non-commercial purposes like commuting, short trips and "family car" duties" would remain mostly the same as they are now, with the following changes:

a) The driver's controls inside the car would be removed.

b) There would be a driver's seat bolted to the very front of the front bumper right in the middle, so the driver would be right at the front of the car.

c) The necessary driver controls would be attached via a lightweight framework around the driver's seat so the driver could properly operate the vehicle.

d) There would be a lightweight transparent bubble mounted around the driver's seat to protect the driver from wind and rain, with the appropriate windshield wiper to protect their view, and a door to allow them to get in and out of the driver's seat. Note: There will be NO "crush zone" or padding in the bubble: The driver will be unprotected by the bubble except for wind and precipitation.

Benefits:

1) No more tailgating. When the driver realizes that THEY are the crumple zone and they will be the very first to die in a rear-end collision they will instinctively back off.

2) No problems with visibility at all: The bubble will be completely clear so the driver can see everything in front and to the sides of the driver's seat.

3) More civility on the roads and much less danger to pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcyclists. If the car hits any of these people, the bubble will be weak enough so that the injuries to the driver will be commensurate with the injuries to the pedestrian. Also, the bubble will be designed so the drive will be eye-to-eye with any pedestrians, and any offended person will be able to walk up the the bubble, open the door and punch the driver in the face if they try to drive the car in a manner threatening to the person.

4) Driver awareness. The driver will be viscerally aware of the risks of operating a motor vehicle because they can see and imagine just what will happen to them in an accident. They will drive much more carefully because they will instinctively know that if they make a single bad mistake, they're dead.

5) Passenger protection. While the driver will be utterly unprotected by anything, all the passengers will continue to enjoy the protection of the airbags, crumple zones and padding in the passenger compartment. So they will be just fine in most crashes, while the driver may be less than a grease spot on the road.

As long as we continue to cater to drivers wanting to "feel safe" by putting them in bloated vehicles with poor visibility and lots of padding, they will not have enough motivation to drive more carefully because in their reptile brain, they are "safe". If you put them in a vehicle guaranteed to kill them if they get in an accident, then they will drive more carefully.

"Why should you upgrade?": I'm almost completely in agreement with you on this.

My only pushback is remembering the time I had to get data from a non-networked 1994 PC to a Windows 10 PC for an accountant friend, including a great deal of confidential client info. Fortunately, I had a USB 3.5" floppy disk drive. Sadly, that's the only method that worked. (One of these days I'm going to insist on a steak dinner for that miserable bobo work.) So my take is that decisions about upgrading systems need to take into account the difficulties and costs of data migration as well as just "New Shiny".

There are SO many little aggravations, money grabs, information grabs, and other "monetize the customer" efforts by M$ that I am very happy I moved to Linux years ago. Yes, there was a learning curve but it was SO worth it. Upgrades, updates? Easy and FAST. Not hours like Windows. Have a problem? Logs, tools, everything needed to figure it out instead of "Your computer has suffered a problem, and there's no good information to help you figure it out" like Windows. Customization? Go nuts, not "You will do it the Windows way or not at all" like M$.

The current standard for "bicycle helmets" only checks a helmet in a stationary crash: Basically they put the "helmet" on a dummy and let it fall sideways to the ground. Not a very realistic scenario for an actual crash. Considering that these helmets are used by "electric bicycles" that regularly exceed the legal limit of 32 km/h, this is a pathetic level of protection.

There is no requirement for seatbelts in school busses. That is a pathetic level of protection.

There is no legal requirement for so-called "self-driving" cars or trucks to effectively look for motorcycles and leave enough space for safety.

There are very few regulations that can force a maker of these fancy "AI enhanced" or IoT connected safety systems dependable, reliable or even safe. You as the consumer will have to sign your rights away to even buy a vehicle with this e-garbage. That is a pathetic level of protection.

Manufacturers need to face some sort of reality check: We do not need this overhyped and undependable e-crap: We need solid engineering solutions.

Adding "features" to a tool that doesn't need them is counterproductive. Screwing up a de facto standard is harmful. Forcing everyone to work the way the company wants them to is oppressive.

Counterproductive, harmful, oppressive. At what point do you pull the plug and upgrade to Linux? What does it take, seriously?

Toronto has a lot of roads that are heavily used. It's a multi-million person city, and the planning around traffic has rarely been logically addressed. Developers have influenced the city leaders to permit building new developments with very little setback from the street, no dedicated off-street loading areas, and very little concern for any congestion they cause, all to maximize profit.

The usage of street space has not been done logically: It's been VERY political, and pandered to many special interest groups. Bicycle lanes are put in on main arteries with little thought as to how many people actually use them: In a city that experiences genuine winters when VERY few people actually use the bike lanes, it's more politics that dictates the extensive deployment of bike lanes on arteries, and less logic.

Toronto needs to look logically at the doling out of limited street pace to maximize benefit and improve mobility for *everybody*. Toronto has a very poor public transit system compared to other major cities around the world, and needs to improve that desperately. In the mean time, Toronto needs to rise above the whining of the special interest groups and be intelligent and sensible about sharing of street space.

Considering the quality of the city government and their pandering to developers, I am not very hopeful this can happen.

I always buy my own unlocked device.

You're not wrong, but you misunderstand the reality on the ground in Canada. We do NOT have a first amendment (or a second amendment for that matter) and the government in Quebec is quite willing to censor, abuse free speech, and impose draconian restrictions to prevent access to ANYTHING in English in their Perfect French Utopia. That government is just Anglo-haters who just want to exterminate any remaining English in their "nation". (Is this fascism? You decide!)

So how to fix this? Easy! Netflix, Disney, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and everyone else just have to block all streaming access to Quebec. (They can still bill Quebec credit cards, however!) Anyone in Quebec who wants to defy their micro-controlling government should just use a VPN. Then, everyone is happy.

There's actually precedent for this: Our federal government (aka the clown show) decided that platforms like Google and Facebook had to pay to link to Canadian news sites because somehow they thought that was a ripoff. (Don't try to understand it, they are just REALLY stupid and they believed what a bunch of MSM grifters paid them to think.) Instead of submitting to that extortion, the platforms just blocked the posting of any news links by Canadians on their platform.

So, if the streaming sites simply block all access from Quebec IP addresses, that would meet the proposed legal requirements and costs the streaming services very little.