bradford

I've been battling with locking down my kid's devices for much of my life.

I haven't found a parental control feature that works: we've tried several, but, generally, nothing survives the 'Hey, I'll just factory reset the device and start with a clean out-of-box-experience' bypass. Kids can figure this stuff out.

Even when we thought that things were under control, kids can easily procure new devices. Many families don't dispose of their old phones; it's not too hard for kids to find an older model that's been sitting around collecting dust, bring it to the schoolyard, and trade it like a baseball card.

I wish I had a good answer, and, distasteful as the age-verification might be, I'm open to such draconian measures at this point. If you say there are better ways to enforce this, I'd honestly love to hear the specifics.

The quote resonates with me, even though I haven't experienced the exact "set a vibe on a date" scenario.

I have multiple bluetooth headsets that I use with multiple devices. I have collected a series of tricks that I use when I can't get bluetooth to operate the way I want it to: turning bluetooth on/off, restarting the bluetooth device. "Forget the network" is not one of those tricks, but I wouldn't be surprised if others have learned to use it.

Let's avoid falling into the trap of assuming the worst of people when replying to comments.

I haven't kept aware of changes to Java in the last decade, but the things I didn't like about it then were:

1. The overall architecture (with the JVM) made it slower than the equivalent C# code.

2. C# really started embracing modern language features at a time when Java was kind of languishing (lambda functions, async patterns). Java seems like it's been in perpetual catch-up since then.

(Not OP, disclaimer, I work for Microsoft and this is only my opinion).

Can you explain in what way Windows already does this?

Thanks for your response!

Why is a repository called 'Microsoft Store' being hosted on a seemingly random github account?

Why doesn't the README file explain what this repository is doing?

OP, what did you hope to accomplish with this submission?

The lack of support on LTSC is the least baffling thing going on here but I'm open to the possibility that I'm misunderstanding something....

I agreed with a lot in the article, but I was a bit baffled by the DEI name-drop in the opening.

> "... the guys who had big tech startup successes in the 90s and early aughts think that 'DEI' is the cause of all their problems."

Who is the author referring to here?

(I realize that DEI has been rolled back at some companies, and Zuckerberg in particular has derided it, yet I still feel like the author is referring to some commonly accepted knowledge that I'm out of the loop on.)

I hate to be that guy, but I believe the `|>` syntax started with F# before Elixir picked it up.

(No disagreements with your post, just want to give credit where it's due. I'm also a big fan of the syntax)

Suppose user U has read access to Subscription S, but doesn't have access to keyvault K.

If user U can gain access to keyvault K via this exploit, it is scary.

[Vendors/Contingent staff will often be granted read-level access to a subscription under the assumption that they won't have access to secrets, for example.]

(I'm open to the possibility that I'm misunderstanding the exploit)

> it's not a data breach for the government to have access to government data

This absurd oversimplification needs to be called out.

The 'government' is not a single individual, nor should 'government data' be treated without regards to specifics.

The exact entity doing the accessing, and the exact data that's being accessed, all need to be accounted for, and the appropriateness of the access will change depending on the context.

DOGE hasn't been transparent in any of this, which is my chief complaint at the moment.

Totally disagree, I've used KQL for about 10 years now, and SQL for 20. Given the choice, I'll always prefer KQL.

Sorry, I don't have time for a thorough rebuttal of all the topics mentioned in the link you provided, but if I had to bring up a few counterpoints:

1. (Can't be expressed) KQLs dynamic datatype handles JSON much better than SQLs language additions.

2. (variables/Fragile structure/Functions) KQL fixes many of the orthogonality issues in SQL. (Specifically: both variable assignments and function parameters can accept scalar and tabular values in a similiar way, where-as SQL uses different syntax for each)

(disclaimer, msft employee)

> How can this be possible if you literally admit its tab completion is mindblowing?

I might suggest that coding doesn't take as much of our time as we might think it does.

Hypothetically:

Suppose coding takes 20% of your total clock time. If you improve your coding efficiency by 10%, you've only improved your total job efficiency by 2%. This is great, but probably not the mind-blowing gain that's hyped by the AI boom.

(I used 20% as a sample here, but it's not far away from my anecdotal experience, where so much of my time is spent in spec gathering, communication, meeting security/compliance standards, etc).