At least they're consistent about UX. My only complaint is that it needs more tabs.

Of course he does. He is comically ignorant.

This is just sentimental nonsense. You are not obligated to patronize or be friendly to evil people.

> evil people

Your conservative neighbor is no more evil than someone who thinks their conservative neighbor is evil because they are conservative.

You said:

> Your conservative neighbor is no more evil than someone who thinks their conservative neighbor is evil because they are conservative.

In response this:

> This is just sentimental nonsense. You are not obligated to patronize or be friendly to evil people.

Why do you assume that "evil" == "conservative" here?

Inferred based on OP and other comments from parent. Works the same way reverse.

Other than "I don't like what this implies", what were your specific complaints? Because I don't believe you actually read any of the studies.

Poor people aren't buying Ferraris and Bentleys, and yet plenty of them sell, so I think you're taking anecdote as data.

The opposite of modesty is not "buying a Ferrari". Anyone at any level of wealth can be immodest.

Not saying I agree with GP, but your point doesn't hold up.

There’s still a strong cultural bias though that is likely location dependent. I have lived in very wealthy towns for which there was not a single Ferrari or Bentley around (or any other luxury car for that matter). That ownership of an expensive car requires some degree of wealth is absolutely clear, but the inverse doesn’t follow —- average cars don’t indicate average income. It could be that the study finds that certain ethical biases are related to people who buy expensive cars, which is not the same as saying that certain ethical biases are related to wealthy people. Millionaires who drive Toyotas could simply exhibit different ethical standards than millionaires who drive Ferraris.

A frank conversation with a luxury car dealer might surrise you. People are buying these things on credit mostly, and are definitely not rich.

5-10 year old used Bentleys are ~50-60K well within the realm of a normal middle class individual.

Arent bentleys designed to be driven by a separate driver not by the owner? :)

Compared to pricing, maybe.

But driving a bently is "some work", so I would rather prefer the small e-vehicle :-))

I think the point was many people are car enthusiasts and can technically afford the maintenance if they want it that bad.

In fact, it usually takes them down the path of flipping the cars and falling up instead of down.

My fault, with >some work< I meant only the driving experience / effort, not any of the "maintenance / support" related issues (-:

Short version: I would go rather in leight-weight E-vehicle than in a heavy bently, navigating like an aircraft carrier

two doors down from my shop is an antique bently restorer. he's sold a few, but he still has 5 frames that he's working on. after all the custom panel and interior work and chasing after the few remaining parts available in all kinds of odd international corners he's still quite underwater.

Sucks to be that guy? I'm not sure what your point is. You haven't given enough information to assess much. It's also likely you don't know all the numbers or you'd be working there.

> Poor people aren't buying Ferraris and Bentleys

No, but sometimes they can finance a very (comparatively) expensive car for way too many years at an insane percentage just to appear wealthier than they are. And that stomps on the study just as much as millionaires driving a Camry IMO.

That link doesn't seem very credible. It looks like they were targeting an outcome, and bent the statistics to fit.

I don't think Microsoft would intentionally compete with Windows, but it does seem as though they are preparing for a world where Windows is no longer their golden goose, or at least hedging their bets. Given that Windows has already decisively lost the battle for servers, this seems prudent.

It’s already no longer their golden goose. It’s about 6% of total revenue (see http://bullfincher.io/companies/microsoft-corporation/revenu...).

Microsoft could give Windows away for free and be fine. Of course it’s still a lot of money, so they’re not going to leave a multibillion dollar business on the table. But strategically, preserving its revenue is not their priority.

How many percent of their revenue funel are dependent directly or indirectly on windows beeing the peoples workstation funneling them towards their subpar products?

In the Enterprise, they'll fight tooth and nail to maintain that synergy. In the small business and consumer markets, people are having a very slow divorce from Windows, and Microsoft is well aware. MS365 is an ok product and can absolutely thrive on its own without Windows.

Without the "i grew up with that pipeline "that is windows? I have doubts.

Probably some amount. I agree Windows is strategic, but do definitely could see them giving it away and/or fully open sourcing it.

It is most likely impossible, given the amount of code that is probably still under contractors copyright, or other kinds of licenses.

They don't have to provide the source to give the OS away for free.

The difference between BSD and GPL in one sentence.

I'd say it's an old problem be exacerbated by AI.

It's worked so well in the past, surely it will work this time.