I disagree that it’s so simple, 10 is different because for a long time it was unclear 11 was ever going to happen, the biyearly releases were the new versions. For most of the other Windows versions they didn’t stop receiving security update until well after the next version or two were out. 11 will have only been out for 4 years when support for 10 theoretically stops.

At least I attempted to looked it up, rather than everyone else who assumed it just can’t happen at all while also knowing nothing about it.

No, what I’m saying is that a quick Google suggests you can get jail time for this in Colombia even if Apple is the one suing. Obviously I’m not an expert, but my point is that Apple’s threat of possible jail time is not completely unfounded, you can’t assume it just works like the US legal system.

I think you might be making too many assumptions about the Colombian legal system.

Keep in mind it’s not an all or nothing thing, they’ll assign percentages of fault. It’s also important that they name name basically anybody involved because the others will try to blame Google to shift fault off of themselves.

Effectively you want to name everybody possible so that they all fight it out.

It’s not quite what you’re getting at, but in Bubble Bobble Revolution you can’t pass level 30 because the boss doesn’t spawn. It’s a soft lock but there’s nothing you can do to avoid it, and the game is on the DS so there’s no updates to fix it :D

Much of what she was brought on to do (negotiating with advertisers I guess) isn’t really public facing, so from that respect it’s not that surprising that she appears to be doing nothing. I also think she’s not taking the L yet, if things get even worse Musk may blame her as an excuse to walk things back (“I was following her advice” or whatever).

Maybe, but there’s a market out there for CEOs who are willing to take the blame for some unpopular decisions and then walk away. There’s also something to be said that “-50%” might actually be an improvement over where it was before she was hired, and the bad decisions weren’t hers.

Generally speaking the use case is writing tests. If your tests just call all the dependencies and new directly then it’s harder to write tests for your specific component while avoiding setting up a whole bunch of stuff (to make all those other classes work). By requiring all the dependencies to be provided to the class, you can swap them out at test time for something else that’s easier to work with.

That said, IMO it’s a symptom of problems in language design. Using DI is only necessary because languages like C# don’t make it easy to mock out new or classes used directly, so we resort to wrapping everything in interfaces and factories to avoid those features and replace them with ones that are easier to mock. If the language was designed such that those features were easy to replace during testing then DI probably wouldn’t be a thing.

My point is that the data on here is purposely shared with every other federated instance, there’s no semblance of privacy and your data is shared with hundreds or likely thousands of admins by the time it’s done (more and more as the network grows). There’s no reason to trust that every admin will keep that information private, some people are already talking about putting up services to expose all the hidden information (in the name of “transparency”). It’s simply trivial for Meta or anybody else to get copies of the data because there’s no real protection from it unless you’re making your instance an island (and that’s an island from everybody, not just one specifically known to be Meta).

What’s the point of downloading a game if not to experience it?

“Nobody deserves to get paid for creating the games I enjoy”.

Fundimentally none of the data on here is private, it’s not designed to be private.

I totally agree with you that a typical CEO would not put up with this at all, but then I don’t think this is a very typical situation :D I would assume she knew what she was getting into. He named himself CTO so it’s not like he’s no longer involved in the company, and the CEO can’t really ‘overrule’ him on any product decisions or anything else since he’s technically also her boss.

Now, if he’s smart he will hopefully at least take her opinions/guidance into consideration, but 🤷

He still owns the company so it doesn’t matter who the CEO is, he is their boss. If he wants to continue making big business decisions then he still can, and if the CEO doesn’t agree he can either fire them or just go over their head.

Are we sure on that? I’ve seen conflicting reports on whether they actually started paying or not (Ex. Engadget article from a week ago says they are). It’s not public information so it’s hard to verify.

Does Twitter Blue show ads? I guess I assumed if you’re paying you don’t have to see those, but that would make too much sense 🤦‍♂️