SmartmanApps

(a)(b) basically means a*b.

Actually it's (axb), since a(b+c)=(ab+ac). This is where a lot of people go wrong in the order of operations questions you see on socials - removing the brackets too soon. 1/ab=1/(axb) NOT 1/axb. If a=2 and b=3 then 1/ab=1/(2x3)=1/6, but 1/axb=1/2x3=3/2. Note that this also means it gets solved in the Brackets step of order of operations, NOT the "Multiplication" step (another common mistake).

If there is no operator though, it is assumed multiplication

It's not "multiplication", it's a Product, a single number written as a product of factors. If a=2 and b=3 then ab is 6 written as the product of 2 and 3. ab=(2)(3)=(2x3)=6. axb=ab, 2x3=6, axb=2x3, ab=6.

"I’m unsure why that is."

To show it's a single number, not 2 separate numbers to be multiplied. Think of things like F=ma. You have to show that ma is a single number (equal to the Force), not 2 separate numbers multiplied., mxa. If you were doing something like dividing by the Force, then you have to have 1/ma=1/(mxa), NOT 1/mxa.

The rest of useful information is pretty much not available without premium account anyway

That's not true. There's was more info there than your 2 sentences. e.g. syncing to other devices.

Of course I read it. Why would you think I didn't? There was more info there than your "2 sentences".

I looked again, since the text I could see there was different to what I saw on the site, and that is actually at the BOTTOM of the page - there's a whole bunch of the article above that - so for some reason your phone(?) is taking you to the bottom of the page (I'm on desktop and it opens up at the top of the page).

Paywall? I had no trouble getting it to display.

Issue is now closed - "The fix is included in 9.0 GA. This did not make it in time for RC2"

Just to be clear, it's not MY book, but the book of whoever's blog that is (Michael someone) - that's the title of the blog post "My book...".

Ah ok. I saw there was issues with federation and communities getting blocked, didn't think either of those would be it. Thanks for letting me know!

Yes, provided you meet the criteria, so I'm guessing maybe he doesn't... or maybe he just wants to make the point that MS are earning income from this and yet not providing any more support than a free product is providing.

He's referring to Visual Studio.

Yes, that's his point. That if you've released your app close to the end of the period, then you're forced to upgrade your app right away, even just to keep getting security patches, on top of any bugs you might already be trying to get on top of with your newly released app. Other systems have a longer support period and you wouldn't be faced with that.

Sorry. Hadn't occurred to me you may not be able to see it (usually it's me who can't see things others post! 😂 ).

In a nutshell it boils down to the release schedule for .NET/C# - which people are paying to use - is too quick with too short support periods. He compares to another language, which is free (from memory I think it was Rust? I'd have to watch it again to see) which has the same short support periods, but is FREE. i.e. what are we paying for if we're not getting support for any longer than something which has the same support period for free? He's saying since MS is charging people for this, the support periods need to be longer, specifically security patches. e.g. if someone releases an app near the end of a period, then has only say 6 months before they have to upgrade it already, just to keep getting security patches. People don't have the option to stay on their stable release for a decent amount of time, even though they're paying for it. He just wants them to slow down the speed and increase the periods (we all know MS is all about pushing out new features over fixing bugs).