Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | passwordoops's commentslogin

Faced with a full-length pop-up saying they care about my privacy just made me think, "if you cared about my privacy, you wouldn't track me and therefore wouldn't need ny consent for anything"

They bury the "Reject" button behind two clicks too.

Anecdotal and loosely related, but I can say since Gemini was forced into Gmail, much more obvious SPAM passes the filter

Depends who's observing

How far back do you have to go for Microsoft to be seen as "good" the way Google was?


Windows XP for me


.NET and VS Code gave some people the impression that MICROS~1 had become good and nice.


IP/BigCo lawyers are probably the main lobbyists behind this article in the bill so I would think soonish


Because it's the correct take


Doesn't mean it's a valuable take.

It doesn't even significantly matter whether it's a bubble or not, but whether its a "bad" bubble.

I think Steve Eisman (of housing bubble fame) recently made the argument that it's probably a bubble, but it doesn't seem to have the hallmarks it would have to turn it into a crisis. e.g. no broad immediate exposure for the general populace (as in housing/crypto bubbles).


> It doesn't even significantly matter whether it's a bubble or not, but whether its a "bad" bubble.

there are billions and billions of dollars invested in there -- it matter significantly to a lot of people.

the bubble popping may trash the US and possibly global economy. "it doesn't matter" has to be one of the worst AI takes I've seen...


Microsoft Restarting would be more fitting


This makes the most sense


If there was no merger/takeover and you need to add "formerly" to the brand name, you should keep the original branding


Right, it's not a takeover, it's a "slip-under" without any adversarial corporate action except from inside Microsoft itself. As it becomes less relevant more effectively than an outside force calling the shots.

Another one where the users notice instantly, and also means a lot to enterprises but the Microsoft executives seem to be so insulated they don't even seem to be paying attention at all.

This is the kind of thing that Apple and Google have been taking to the bank more every time.

With all the brilliant engineers who are still there actually putting in good code, why can't that pipeline be maintained at least to the continued benefit of users, if not better than ever without some kind of Ballmerizing still getting in the way at this late date?

Looking at the fundamentals, if Microsoft itself can no longer afford to maintain separate Office and Copilot efforts, how is a less-well-funded enterprise supposed to be able to?

Instead of accepting the nonideal combination, maybe it's actually a sign that it's the right time to choose one or the other since that's the opposite direction Microsoft is going :\

At least on a per-machine basis. I don't really mind experimenting with Copilot but I don't want it at all on an established office machine.


Because at some point it won't be opt in


Everything about modern Windows is coercive, or ends up being coercive. You can't even shut down your PC without it forcing you to update Windows. It lets you skip for a while, then after some time, the only options are to Update and Reboot or Update and Shutdown. Totally disrespectful of who the actual owner of the computer is. You have to yank the power plug out to shut down your computer safely.


>Update and Shutdown

and if you pick that, there's a high chance that it will reboot and leave your pc running anyway.


I think they just finally fixed that one :)


Run it in a VM and just roll the update back.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: