It means a change either applied completely and successfully, or not at all (think “atomic transactions” in databases).

We have that already; it’s called a bicycle.

Technically correct, because they weren’t “American” before they landed.

They abandoned the Bible as a real guide long before that, though.

As an IT guy, if I worked with Macs this would be terrible to work with

You know, now that you say it, I’d bet that’s exactly why they did it. They probably want to fuck over companies that would otherwise have racks of Mac Minis (for clusters, colocated servers, etc.) and force them into Mac Studios or Mac Pros instead.

Implying Mac Minis haven’t looked like Apple TVs from the beginning?

Mac Mini (2005-2009):

Apple TV (1^st gen, 2007):

Mac Mini (2010, first redesign after Apple TV came out):

Assuming that there are any non-fascists left to react…

As someone who gets greeted alarmingly often by people whose names I ought to remember but don’t (I’m a minor community leader but am bad with names), I’ve wanted a device like this for 20+ years. I’m a little sad about the concept being vilified.

On the other hand, as an advocate for both privacy and Free Software, I always imagined it as being completely self-hosted and only adding people’s names/faces to its database when I’m introduced to them in person. I’m not at all sad about the particular implementation being vilified.

Sure, you can work around Microsoft’s intentional sabotage, in the same way that you can make excuses about “falling down stairs” when friends ask about the black eyes your abusive spouse gave you. But you shouldn’t have to.

Oh and…

It takes the same fucking time when configuring your Linux distro of choice, unattended or not.

…no it fucking doesn’t, BTW. (At least not unless you intentionally choose to use a ‘difficult’ distro like Arch or Gentoo.)

That’s right: it is a fucking tool, which means nothing the user does to it or with it could possibly count as “abuse” by the user. An OS is supposed to exist to do exactly the computer owner’s bidding; no more, no less.

But Microsoft certainly doesn’t see it that way. Instead, Windows exists to do Microsoft’ bidding, computer owner’s rights be damned. It’s Microsoft that’s abusing you, by whoring you out to advertisers and subverting your property against you, when you use Windows.

ITT: Stockholm Syndrome victims defending the abusive relationship they have with their OS.

Newsflash, honey: she doesn’t respect you; she only wants to exploit you. It’s time to break up!

Huh, it’s almost as if, when sanctions are declared, they go into effect for everyone at once.

Okay, then that would be option #4 (because neither of the two things you previously mentioned are civil disobedience).

Third option: force the government to outlaw this bullshit

Did I stutter?

Okay, enough is enough. The Internet Archive is both essential infrastructure and irreplaceable historical record; it cannot be allowed to fall. Rather than just hoping the Archive can defend itself, I say It’s time to hunt down and counterattack the scum perpetrating this!

Returning is not enough. Boycotting is not enough. We need to be marching on the FTC and Congress with torches and pitchforks about this shit!

In other words, because abuse begets abuse.

Hey! If you’re gonna do it, do it right!

1. Hyperlink your comment to the previous one in the chain
2. Make a post in !lemmaroo@lemmy.world referencing it

See https://lemmy.world/post/8803878 for more detailed instructions.

Tech bosses think nuclear fusion is the solution

No they don’t; this is literally the first thing I’ve ever read claiming that. Tech bosses are perfect happy to power AI with nuclear fission and don’t give the slightest fuck about the waste.

(As well they shouldn’t, TBH, since it really ought to get reprocessed anyway. But that doesn’t excuse them for wanting to waste the power on bullshit.)

However, wanting contributions while retaining the exclusive right to distribute the software is anti-collaborative. I’m reluctant to say it might as well be proprietary again

As you describe it, that is proprietary – no “might as well be” qualification necessary. Just because you can read the source code doesn’t make it Open Source; you’ve got to have all Four Freedoms for it to count.