Yeah it makes no sense; he literally posted something as bad as this:

Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP"

We don’t need a fake variant of it.

Just keep the cookies on the counter top?

They will never learn because they make Windows for Microsoft not for users. They do whatever suits them and they think will maximises profitability and their share price. They have to keep “growing” so they have to find new ways to make money.

As for the article; what shill bullshit is this?

It probably makes sense for a lot of users to have their default browser of choice open automatically at login, as most people spend the majority of their time in a web browser. Windows already automatically preloads Edge in the background by default to increase its startup performance, so it’s not a huge leap to automatically display the app itself if Windows knows you’re going to open it anyway.

No, it does not make sense to do this. Apps can be set to auto launch if users want them to. This only makes sense from the perspective of Microsoft trying to push Edge onto user so it can grow it’s market share and harvest even more data.

Yeah, could also have two Pi-Hole instances. One is network wide and block ads for everyone, and the other is the DNS the kids PCs use, set with a white list of approved sites only. You can set Pi-hole to block everything (set * as the a RegEx filter) and then add domains to the white list to be allowed through.

Groups is probably more efficient but two instances could be offer more options/nuance on how you run things.

They not sacking the Krafton CEO who used ChatGPT to strategise how to cheat the devs out of their money, overruled his legal team and has embarrassed the company?

It does make sense for Signal as this is a free app that does not make money from advertising. It makes money from donations.

So every single message, every single user, is a cost without any ongoing revenue to pay for it. You’re right about the long run but you’d need the cash up front to build out that infrastructure in the short term.

AWS is cheap in the sense that instead of an initial outlay for hardware, you largely only pay for actual use and can scale up and down easily as a result. The cost per user is probably going to be higher than if you were to completely self host long term, but that does then mean finding many millions to build and maintain data centres all around the world. Not attractive for an organisation living hand to mouth.

However what does not make sense is being so reliant on AWS. Using other providers to add more resilience to the network would make sense.

Unfortunately this comes back to the real issue - AWS is an example of a big tech company trying to dominate a market with cheap services now for a potential benefits of a long term monopoly and raised prices in the future. They have 30% market share and already an outage by Amazon is highly disruptive. Even at 30% we’re at the point of end users feeling locked in.