Awesome, totally sidestepped any processing i had to catch the meaning, but always appreciate a multi layer Linux reference :)

I mean from their perspective, they would call the ‘base’ we use ‘22’. Unless I’m missing the joke in there about a calculator?

Not sure if fruit trees would pass the “use daily” criteria, at least not in the generally acceptable sense.

I have a workshop that was converted from a barn quite a long time before I was born.

Yes, but it can only handle up to two syllable words, 5 the grade level vocab and it only follows the first 3 words of your prompt and fills in the rest with narcissistic mad-libs.

We use base 22

Maybe it’s not a being, maybe you have some generic abnormality that can be exploited somehow. Bonus points if the abnormality is regeneration.

Well, it might be a ‘software design issue’, but it’s really more of a branching point that was made long ago and reflects the world we live in. It could be fixed, but the point is that error messages are often not logged but people tend to act like they must be, and that their vague description of an issue should be enough to track it down like ‘something flashed on my screen last week’.

Hell people can’t even describe useful parts of an error that’s correctly happening…‘it’s not doing ANYTHING!’ can often mean anything from not booting, to the mouse not moving, to ‘it’s working perfectly but icons are snapping into place instead of staying exactly where I’m dragging them’.

Well, ‘proven wrong’ is a bit of a stretch. ‘will soon block screen capture’ doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room, but also isn’t that crazy to read into it that maybe it would block screen capture on the presenters screen… especially if you grant that it might only have control over the teams portion of the screen. I’ve had it black out windows on my own machine even when not presenting.

But further than that, it’s not fair to say everything has to be read only from the most or the least charitable viewpoints. Context is a thing and if you’re even a little bit familiar with the history of software enshittification, it’s reasonable to assume that an uncharitable reading is fair without assuming the app will now melt your computer for spare parts if you try something that is disallowed. ‘As shitty as we can get away with’ might be a good rule of thumb.

That’s a charitable reading, and likely justified by the article, but based only on the phrasing, it’s just as likely to read that as assuming Microsoft will block all content in order to ensure the safety of sensitive data. Sniff tests have to be adapted when things tend to stink in general, or companies regularly try to cover up their smell.