I was referring mainly to Windows software, Adobe Illustrator and InDesign were major pain points on the Windows side. Sure though, add Linux compatibility to the list of things that were an issue too.
I would be happy to eat my words "later this year" (per their timeline) but past Surface interactions lead me to believe it will be more of the same as in the past. Bad performance, bad battery life, bad build quality, bad compatibility.
For the sake of competition and options, I really hope to be proven wrong... I just wouldn't bet on it.
A former employer of mine, owned by a retired NFL player, purchased Surface devices for the sales staff in addition to their laptops. This was presumably because Microsoft and the NFL had a deal where everyone on the sidelines were using Surfaces and they thought it was a good idea. I say that because no one was asking for them, and when we received them I was inundated with tickets about poor performance: "my surface is slow", "my surface is glitchy". I dreaded working on these things. Everyone just went back to their laptops. Tens of thousands of dollars wasted.
It's a shame, Microsoft could really do something if they created an ARM device that had the battery life of Apple Silicon, yet was a real computer that wasn't locked down, ensured/promoted ARM compatibility with their ecosystem. Heck, I'd even be OK with Windows 11, I know how to remove all the garbage now and could run WSL (though I'd prefer to just boot Linux on it).
> The ones where they’re going to send brownshirts to intimidate voters in blue states?
Any actual evidence this is happening or is going to happen? I've seen some ACLU talking points, always conveniently placed above a donate button, but not any facts.
> The ones they’re going to try to disrupt like Dallas County last night?
Not from Dallas but looking at the news it looks like a state issue involving the Texas Supreme Court? No mention of Trump, GOP, ICE, or brownshirts.
> The ones they’ve trying desperately to Gerrymander to lock down their dictatorial power? Those elections?
Gerrymandering just started under Trump?
I know there is no way to verify this, but I am not a Trump supporter or Republican. I am just someone who thinks the rhetoric is completely overblown, not supported by reality, and especially comparing it to Iran they're not even in the same phylum let alone class.
We're not talking about starting wars versus getting involved in existing conflicts, we're not even talking about right versus wrong, we're talking about Pentagon spending and who benefits. The U.S. giving Ukraine our older weapons stockpiles so we can create NEW stockpiles doesn't speak to who started what, but that Democrats were sure in favor of increased spending while Republicans weren't. The assertion was one party always wants more spending on "defense" while one party doesn't. It simply isn't true, both parties are happy to find justifications to increase the Pentagon's budget.
> That said, there is one party that is consistently hawk-ish and boasts about war spending. And there is another party which most often campaigns on reducing war spending.
Maybe if you only look at the war on terror years, but look at WWI and WWII and most recently Ukraine. Both parties love Pentagon spending when it's _their_ war.
It's interesting that you don't think I'm talking about both sides. Rush Limbaugh used to call women he disagreed with feminazis. The "tea party" under Obama used to call everything communist and fascist.
I don't know how a country filled with guns can survive the normalization of calling people you disagree with Nazi, Fascist, etc. We've all been taught since grade school it was a good thing to kill Nazis, even in small percentages there are mentally unstable people who will hear you call someone a Fascist and take the logical step from "it's good to kill nazis" to "they're a nazi so I should kill them". I am both very pro freedom of speech and right to bear arms, and I think where Canada and the UK have gone with hate speech laws are too far, but I don't know how you solve this.
> When democracy and the rule of law are considered less important than (insert all the dem ills here), it’s not dems. It’s the voters.
Democracy and rule of law like... covering up the mental decline of a sitting president, foreign leaders lying to the American public saying Joe Biden is fine, only for him to finally expose himself so badly live on TV they jettison the man off the 2024 ticket while leaving him in office? Then imposing a candidate by fiat?
January 6th was absolutely a constitutional crisis, but it lasted less than a day. The cover-up of Biden's mental state was a multi-year constitutional crisis that still has not been fully acknowledged.
When there are two competing harms you fall back to things like who is going to put more money in my pocket. This is 100% the dem's fault.
So unless Forbes investigates literally every social media site and app they aren't allowed to report on one, or else they're jingoistic xenophobes?
That poor argument aside, they DID in fact report on other social media sites, the same year, a few months earlier than the even did on TikTok. https://archive.is/J1kjN
This article isn't about people being offended at seeing sexual material on TikTok. It's about how TikTok _knew_ that children were being paid in TikTok livestreams to engage is sexual behavior. It is good that _you_ didn't consume it, but many were, andd TikTok knew that many were and let it happen to profit from it.
i edited my comment to provide a little more context but just because someone provides reasons doesn’t mean it’s not influenced by the trend. reddit’s trend to dislike tiktok has valid points but it’s also fueled by the trend. i’ve criticized hn here on hn so this isn’t me trying to defend the site.
Do you really think triactual meant literally probably none, or do you think they were using a pretty common method of conveying their idea? Your comment actually supports what kayodelycaon and triactual are saying, that HN commenters can be so nitpicky and pedantic that they end up missing the plot entirely.
> Richard M. Stallman recently announced that he will be returning to the board of directors of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), a statement that the FSF has not denied
He's listed on fsf.org as being on the board so I don't know why they'd deny it.
> If we do not speak out against this, our silence may be misinterpreted as support.
I can't think of a group that does less than the FSF except for maybe OSI. Besides Stallman never left being the head of GNU and did OSI say anything about that?
This is a nothing statement from and almost nothing group.