IHawkMike

Totally not disagreeing, but for some more context she married into the Walton family, inherited a 1.9% stake in the company when her husband died in 2005, and has never had a role in the organization.

This is the one use of Conversation View in Outlook for me.

Lol Microsoft is not even close to a walled garden. This is just them removing the password manager feature that nobody used from their authenticator app.

Exactly! It's not like you need them to learn good habits to become self-sufficient workers when they grow up.

As much as we beg and plead him, our dog is never going out to get a job. Might as well spoil him with treats and belly rubs!

This isn't Microsoft's announcement. They announced over a month ago. This also only affects bulk senders sending over 5,000 emails a day inbound to their Hotmail/Outlook.com service.

And if you can't send DMARC-compliant emails in 2025, frankly you deserve to be blocked.

Also it was black on red to make it harder to photocopy. I remember my mom being proud that she'd used the filters on the fancy copier she had at work to copy this sheet.

You clearly know more than me, but wouldn't everything from 4GB to 1TB have the same number of walks? And one more walk gets you up to 256TB?

No that's not how it works. Handling a larger address space (e.g., 32-bit vs 64-bit) maybe could affect speed between same sized modules on a very old CPU but I'm not sure that's even the case by any noticeable margin.

The RA in RAM stands for random access; there is no seeking necessary.

Technically at a very low level size probably affects speed, but not to any degree you'd notice. RAM speed is actually positively correlated with size, but that's more because newer memory modules are both generally both bigger and faster.

Hard disagree. It only applies for things you cannot change but should try to accept rather than stressing over it.

If you say "it is what it is," in reference to things you could change but choose not to, well that's on you.

It's not exactly clear what the main goal is here and it sounds like a bad idea on first glance after reading your last paragraph. But it sounds like you might be looking for mandatory profiles.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/client-management/client-tools/mandatory-user-profile

But now that I read it again I think you might be conflating users/profiles with sessions. In which case no, this is neither possible nor a good idea. But it still might be okay with mandatory profiles if the device and app works the same from multiple sessions.

Anyway, you might get better answers if you state the full problem, including details on software and device, not just your proposed solution.

https://xyproblem.info/

Same here. No issues.

Device information

Sync version: v24.03.26-14:56
Sync flavor: googlePlay

Yep this is exactly right. Too many people are unaware that their votes are not anonymous on Lemmy and blocking the public tool only helps the bad guys who already know this. I've always thought this was a major weakness in Lemmy but I don't have a solution myself without some other major drawback.

I think probably votes should be anonymized or batched between servers so that only your instance's admins can see individual votes and you just have to trust the instances you federate with that they aren't pulling any shenanigans or otherwise defederate. That's not an easy problem to solve, but it's not like it's not currently possible to manipulate votes with a federated server, it would just be harder to detect. Regardless I think the need for privacy wins here.