wizardbeard

Show me where the data is sent back to Mozilla. It's all open source. I'll wait.

Education would be more effective than complaining.

As a straight, isn't all this is missing for "topping" a strap-on? As in the "top" is usually doing the penetrating?

The rise of the hyper-focus on social justice that came out of the death throes of Occupy Wall Street was an intentional tactic sown by the rich to further delay class war. Divide and conquer.

As always, I have to include a disclaimer: I sure as hell am not "anti-SJW" or whatever. There are a lot of incredibly important injustices out in the world that need to be fixed. That said, I truly feel that financial status is the largest determinator of lifetime success and overall comfort.

So not "the only war is class war". More "the importance and scope of the financial divide, and the difference in life opportunities available to the hyper-rich vs even the upper-middle class, mean that the most important 'war' has to be the class war by sheer necessity".

A good exception to this rule is "Sneakers". Love that movie, and now I'm due for a rewatch.

Same, but nice to know the fanservice was equal opportunity.

Do they really think anyone believes this? We know they sure don't. Broadcom's MO for ages now has been to buy successful companies and gut them for short term profit, then move on.

Who is served by the CTO making this statement? His own barely clinging on remaining shred of his malnourished and abandoned sense of concience?

Like, of course something is more worth the cost if you fully utilize all its features. But if the majority of your user base are complaining of the price and don't need or use the full feature set, it's not the customer's job to change their business use cases to fit your profit needs. It's your job to offer the product they actually need.

Of course it's Thiel's Palantir. Lets all just consolidate all surveillance under one singular company! If we're going to do some stupid, may as well go extra stupid.

What? That's explicitly false. Grab nearly any instruction booklet for physical media, at least for any from 1990 or later. There are explicit sections laying out that you have licensed the content. 35 years ago.

In another comment on this post, someone pointed out that IBM began software licensing in the 50s. So... 75 years ago.

How far back are you going here?

For stuff like game carts/discs, VHS, and DVDs they simply had no way of enforcing the license terms, and the terms much more often included clauses for transference (lending, resale).

By law, it was almost always a license. That was the entire push behind the old attempts to criminalize backup devices and emulation (the bleem! case is good to read up on).

No arguments about how things worked out in day to day life, but a lot of shit was far more of a legal grey area that no one cared to persue. It wasn't as much of a difference of legal rights.

Edit: Well shit, I might be wrong about this. A quick search of the Pokemon Blue Instruction Booklet on the Internet Archive has a section toward the end about copying/backups and not being allowed to rent the game out wirhout approval, but nothing about the license for use.

That said, I'm certain I've seen licensing terms in multiple instruction books from that decade. Maybe it was in the secondary black and white booklet that was generic but came with every GB cart? Don't know where mine are, or if I even still have those.

Ok, checking my physical stuff. Ape Escape for PS1 has no licensing terms in the manual. Just warranty. Great game btw, I'm due for a replay.

Bubsy 3D is next in my collection of PS1 games still CIB, and it does though. Last page forbids transference or resale. Somebody better call that retro game store I bought it from for the lols.

By the way, Bubsy 3D isn't even worth it for the laughs. Not "so bad it's good". Just "so bad it's bad". It cribs the weird control style from Jumping Flash, but does such a worse job with it.

So it looks like the licensing thing may just be case by case. That would explain why some people insist there was licensing terms, and others insist there wasn't.

100%. Never been in management, but I'm in sysadmin/engineering/minor architecture design.

I feel like every time I get frustrated with MS's bullshit, within a day I'm dealing with even worse from some non-MS system we have at my workplace that should have a dedicated team assigned but doesn't.

Ok, but if the goal is "avoid paying for AI I don't want", M365 is worse. They were one of the first companies to start bundling it into every license tier available.

They didn't immediately raise their prices when they started bundling it, but it's the same tactic of using whatever tricks they can to inflate user numbers of AI.

Edit: In agreement with your main point though. Lots of angry people on lemmy who aren't the target audience for MS products and don't actually use it who make a ton of noise about it.

You're missing out.

Edit: This came off intensely aggressive. Sorry.

I'm looking down the barrel of a massive project to shift all of our departments away from network shares to SharePoint. Simultaneously, my team is going to stop supporting "special" permissioned sub-folders, like share/Facilities/Managers/ so people can't see their co-worker's yearly review. Each Sharepoint site's "owner" (read, department manager) will be responsible for access management in their own site.

Also, knowing some of these departments, they will absolutely run up against the limit on amount of files in a single Sharepoint site. My boss seems to refuse to believe that's possible.

This is going to be such a clusterfuck. I am afraid.

Original comment:

Sincerely: How the fuck are your users utilizing Sharepoint that they don't need to navigate the file/folder structure concept? Just using the search bar every time? Maintaining a list of shortcuts or browser favorites?

How does a file being shared from another user's storage invalidate the need to still know how to get to it?

I can't speak to Google Drive, as I've only used that minorly as an end user. Object based storage is an entirely different use case than document/data organization.

File names and tags with shit chucked in what is effectively a root folder are not adequate for most companies' data organization and "securing so only the right people have access" needs.