Lol no.

Yup, the West wanted war so bad they invaded…wait, no, that’s obviously bullshit.

Swapping one states’ propaganda for another isn’t enlightened, its just plain stupid.

A baby is a baby until they’re a toddler. An infant is a brand new baby.

What am I missing, here?

Well, for starters, you seem to be missing anything resembling a coherent argument… 🤪

Umm, no. Just…yeah, no.

The main problem with this theory is that Microsoft is absolutely abysmal at user end security, and they always have been. Frankly, they do not understand the issue.

But, more to the point, the whole TPM/secure boot stuff is a compromise; originally (I think this was about the time of Vista), they partnered with OEMs to have them include a DRM chip that made it literally impossible to install any non-windows OS on your laptop. They’ve managed to still get an implementation of TPM that makes switching your OS too confusing/difficult for the average user.

Anyway, bottom line is they only care about money, and they neither care or even understand the security needs of the end user.

But… they’ve long since figured out how to monetize without the content. So, that’s a hard disagree from me…

And I guess you’re just asking questions??

Not every act is a sign of somebody having an agenda or whatever…

Yeah, it’s a shitty answer, when there are multiple free options that eliminate the problem.

Umm, so do you realize how badly you just destroyed any shred of credibility you had left?

Thank you for identifying a source of disinformation, though; I’m adding it to my block list.

No. Read it again. I never said allegation. I never referenced court proceedings. I said the act of rape is indefensible.

If you commit rape, there is no “decent” defense. If you didn’t, then my comment doesn’t apply. Simple as that.

There is no excuse for sexual violence, and there never will be.

Oh, for heavens sake. I chose to be born into a life where I can only choose the form of my exploitation, in other words?

No. It is not in any way shape or form a result of my choice that some business owner is prioritizing money over people.

Capitalism is not a neutral system. And it’s flaws are certainly not the fault of those being exploited.

An “economic perspective” is horribly skewed in favor of the capitalist class; that’s just saying the misery of the commoner is justified by the greed of those who refuse to actually assist in producing any goods or value for society.

Your reply is completely unrelated to what I said. There is no such thing as a decent defense for raping someone. If they didn’t rape anyone, good! If they did, that is an indefensible act by its very nature.

I made no comment at all on whether or not any specific individual is guilty or not. So I’m really confused what your point is here…?

The ability to gamble on the performance of a company auto-magically means investors know more?

Huh…

Your choice of words was absolutely terrible. There is no such thing as a decent defense of rape. Now, an effective defense in our busted legal system? That’s a whole different story. But “decent” does not apply in cases of sexual assault and violence. Ever.

Press X to doubt…

(I don’t believe you)

I’ve always figured a company will go public before enshitification truly gets underway. It’s kinda the first step of the process.

I guess my argument is that until that pressure to appease the stockholders exists, there’s not a whole lot of motive to justify enshitification. It’s hard for me to imagine the process happening any other way.

So, I suppose you can count my vote as being that going public will likely come first. Just my two cents, though, and I don’t know anything anyway! :-p

I’m a little bit confused by your post. Publicly-traded companies, by and large, place extraordinary emphasis on short term, quarter by quarter profit. Seems like a very strong contender for the root cause if the issue?

Enshitification is about monetization, getting more money from the same customer base.

Doesn’t this statement support publicly traded status being a riot cause, though?

I must assume I’m misunderstanding your argument…?

To replace a corporate executive? No, I don’t think so. We already have algorithms more than capable of replacing CEOs. There is nothing that challenging in what they do…

Ugh. So many places in the world already have abundance that is hard to imagine; but that’s only the case because of extreme hoarding of resources and wealth.