AnyOldName3

It also doesn't help that once you've paid the large fee for the Pro version, it doesn't actually guarantee any support if you encounter a bug. You get access to a different issue tracker, and might get a Unity employee to confirm that the bug exists after a couple of months (and maybe close it as a duplicate, then reopen it as not a duplicate when the fix for the other bug doesn't help, then reclose it as a duplicate when it turns out the fix for the other bug also doesn't fix the other bug, and at the end of a multi-month process, there still being a bug with no indication an engineer's looked at it).

Anyway, I'm glad to no longer be working for a company that uses Unity.

Either:

• They're in denial that this happens (arguably, it didn't happen, as eventually Tesco lost, and they wouldn't know about it in the three years Tesco was winning because The Telegraph/Mail etc. wouldn't report on that).
• They think worse things would always happen under other systems (e.g. everyone would be a slave of the state and go to gulag if they complained about anything).
• They don't see it as an inherent problem with capitalism (e.g. simply make doing this illegal, and refuse to let business lobby to reverse the decision, and everything's fine).
• They think this is a good thing (e.g. the fired workers will be incentivised to work harder, then earn a payrise, and use the extra 10p an hour to start a competing multibillion pound supermarket chain).

It's easy to get pressured into thinking it's your responsibility. There's also the risk that an unhappy company will make a non-copyleft clone of your project, pump resources into it until it's what everyone uses by default, and then add proprietary extensions so no one uses the open-source version anymore, which, if you believe in the ideals of Free Software, is a bad thing.

There was an EU-wide one that gota lot of its funding redirected to AI stuff recently that you might be thinking of.

A rusty crowbar is also red because of the iron atoms that compose it, but it's not mansplaining to take issue with someone telling people they're eating crowbars.

That's more likely to be the tool assuming it's running on a case-insensitive filesystem than it is Windows breaking anything. If you mount networked storage running on a case-sensitive machine, that's something that's worked fine in Windows for a very long time.

In the UK, you're not meant to get within 6ft of a bike when you're overtaking it (although it's pretty common for drivers to get muddled and think that rule's talking about inches). That means it's not safe to overtake if there are oncoming vehicles in the opposite lane or solid white lines in the middle of the road. Another bike a metre or so from the first one doesn't change that if you've got to cross into the opposite lane anyway, and it's better if they're two abrest as you don't need to be in the opposite lane for as long.

There are plenty of idiot cyclists who endanger themselves, but there are also plenty of drivers who accuse people of being idiot cyclists when they're following The Highway Code to the letter.

Personally, I can ignore the effects of artificial sweeteners on insulin levels as they, like everything else, have no effect, and my insulin levels are only affected by when I inject it. I'm type 1 diabetic. When people make incorrect claims based on effects that aren't reproducible or weren't statistically significant in the first place about the safety of sweeteners, it causes direct problems for me. I've had bartenders mess up my blood sugar levels by lying about serving diet drinks because they think they're dangerous. Plus, if the people who push for artificial sweeteners to be banned had their way, there are plenty of things I couldn't ever eat or drink again.

Aspartame is very mildly carcinogenic. An equivalent amount of sugar is much more carcinogenic, and is harmful in other ways, too. If you have to have a can of cola, diet is the healthier choice.

No, that is an entirely unrelated bad decision. It being okay to not have a popup to opt out of secure boot when it does its one job and notices you're about to run insecure code in kernel mode doesn't make every other user-hostile thing Microsoft ever does magically okay.

It's upstream GRUB that's decided the older GRUB versions are insecure and not to be trusted. Microsoft just propagated that to machines running distros that weren't shipping patched GRUB builds yet. Up-to-date Debian wouldn't be affected provided that they downstreamed fixes quickly.

https://fedia.io/m/[email protected]/t/1111595/-/comment/6916699 says that Debian's GRUB wasn't affected, but another part of the boot sequence was.

You can't trust users to make informed decisions about cybersecurity as most users don't have the necessary background knowledge, so won't think beyond this popup is annoying me and has a button to make it go away and I am smart and therefore immune to malware. Microsoft don't want Windows to have the reputation for being infested with malware like it used to have, and users don't want their bank details stolen. If something's potentially going to be a bad idea, it's better to only give the decision to people capable of making it an informed decision. That's why we don't let children opt into surgery or decide whether to have ice cream for dinner, and have their parents decide instead.

The comment you're quoting was replying to someone suggesting a warning popup, and saying it would be a bad idea, rather than suggesting the secure boot UEFI option should be taken away. You need at least a little bit more awareness of the problem to know to toggle that setting.