The people responsible only had experience with React, so they rebuilt it using React.

They use collabora online for document editing (you self host this service). Collabora is LibreOffice based.

Microsoft can’t render text properly. Which is embarrassing for the company that makes the most popular document tools. Every app Microsoft makes that renders text well is running chromium at some level.

Maintaining and testing such an app has costs and risks. They may think it’s more secure that signal does this. It is also harder to attack all of signal.

They are also significantly resource constrained, everything they have goes towards defence. The effort building the app could be deployed on developing weapon systems they can’t buy.

Your right nations should have their own independent systems for secure communications for military, politicians and civil service.

1. Log into Microsoft Account
2. Go to Subscriptions Page
3. Choose 365 Subscription
4. Choose Cancel option

It’s difficult to get anything to work on android tv when you don’t sign and don’t enable all the google shit. Even then the privacy statement is still bend over or your tv doesn’t boot past this screen.

The Apple TV much better.

It may be better than current android tv because the shield is so old and not been updated in so long.

Apple TV doesn’t have ads only what’s on when you have the app icon selected. Except inside apps that have ads.

Largely because they’ve spent two decades trying to police Afghanistan.

This is a good thing. His motivation may be more sinister. It could create a situation where non medical treatments can be advertised without restriction and genuine medicines can’t. It needs to be applied to all treatments, even unregulated ones.

Linoleum isn’t plastic, you may be thinking of vinyl flooring which looks similar. Vinyl is cheaper and newer while appearing very similar to linoleum.

They sold a bad product that needs fixed, bad software shouldn’t get an exception. The warning icons were probably not compliant and should never have left the factory.

It’s worse than that, people will argue shipping good code is impossible. Good testing is hard, so it’s avoided for things like unit tests. Something that’s only equivalent to basic QA in manufacturing. Every software functions is a design change and the system needs to be fully validated and tested. That’s means driving the car, and not shipping the code and using the users cars to prove your design.

Broken software shouldn’t be accepted as much as it is. Especially in safety critical systems like cars, especially when they remove manual controls for things like steering, brakes, hand brakes and door handles. Fly/drive by wire is more dangerous when the software is unreliable. Mechanical linkages fail immediately or take a long time. Bad software fails in uncertain and potentially chaotic ways.

Because there are so many small parts to a processor you need 99.99+% at most stages to stand any chance of mass production. In this context 60-70% is seriously impressive. Millions of things have to be done right to get this type of yield.

In this situation a hub is still better. You can pack all the stuff away plugged into the hub for easier set up. If your plugging that all into your laptop, you’ll need to plug it all back in again when you move.

Too long in the dryer and they cook. Think of dryered flowers, they go brittle and scratchy when they’ve been dried. When those same flowers are fresh their petals are soft.

Fabric softener is a scam. It just coats your clothes in plastic. It will lead to rougher clothes over time.

Your likely over drying your clothes and causing them to be harder and coarser than they need to. Your then compensating with fabric softener.

Not all patents are good. But a patent system is good. It could be better but the general concept is not flawed like the person I was responding to suggests.

The physical object isn’t what is patented in this case. It is the method to create the object that has a patent. One that can’t be reversed engineered as it isn’t part of the final product. You could only reverse engineer it if the process was not novel or not obvious to anyone knowledgeable in the field. If both of these conditions are true then the patent should not have been granted.

Patents are not inherently bad. This is a bad patent. Patent laws don’t have to be changed, because this patent shouldn’t have been granted. The issue is ineffective patent reviews, not patents. Getting rid of patents is not a good idea. If you think it is you probably don’t have a good enough grasp on what a patent is.

You can make something if you figure out how they did it because it was obvious. In this case the patent isn’t valid. If you have to develop a solution then the patent is probably valid. The patent is a reward for developing and sharing the solution publically.

If you still don’t grasp why patents are useful. It may be helpful to think of it like open source software. The patent is the code base that is freely accessible to everyone. This preserves the knowledge and lets others build on it. However, to incentivise people to make their code open source you provide protections that stop others from selling the same code you developed.

The incentive mechanism is why far more businesses produce patents than produce open source code.

If you remove patents businesses stop funding internal r and d overnight. It increase the risk and reduces the reward.

The patent system explicitly provides free access to knowledge. The patent is the knowledge that would be kept secret otherwise.

You would still have monopolies, except things like the ingredients to medicines would be unknown.

Patents do provide some value. If there were no patents than companies would make their technological development a a secret and not share the work with the world.

The patent systems exchanges knowledge and technology development for a temporary monopoly on the technology. It means a company can publish the ingredients to medicines, methods of manufacturing etc. if they didn’t have the patent system they would keep these secret and if a business folded this knowledge would be lost.

Probably better to make those submitting false patents pay a large fine.