lily33

I think the point of the article is to show that the CEOs empty words are empty

Maybe. To me it read more like: "According to Zoom's CEO, Zoom can't fully replace in-person interaction for work. Therefore, it's bad/useless software - or the CEO is bullshitting." Which is just bad reasoning. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Maybe I'm just taking it too literally, but I just don't like when articles use such bad reasoning, even if I agree with their conclusion.

fail to account for spaces critical to trust-building such as water-cooler talk and outside of work events

What do you mean by that? If you are fully virtual there's going to be no water cooler talk - but that's a legitimate difference between in-person and virtual that should affect the results of the study. So it makes sense to me that the study shouldn't try to control for that.

and fail to replicate virtual versions of predominantly in-person activities

I don't think you can. Take for example board games as an in-person activity. The virtual replacement would be video games. A video game can do everything a board game can (with some exceptions) - but it can do so much more. So, purely from a game design perspective, video games would be much better. The main thing that video games don't have, while board games do, is the in-person interaction. Yet, there's plenty of people who play board games, but not video games. Clearly the in-person part is important.

The irony of the situation still seems distant to the CEO. According to the leaked meeting on August 3, Yuan told employees that Zoom the product does not allow Zoom the company to "build as much trust or be as innovative as in the office."

Of course it doesn't. It allows people to communicate remotely. But it's not a 100% substitute for meeting people in person, and pretending otherwise would be stupid. Of course meeting in person builds more trust than video-chats. And discussions on a real whiteboard can be much more productive than on a video call, depending on the topic.

So why does it even exist

Why does the telephone exist? Zoom exists for the same reason. To let people talk remotely. It has some extra features a telephone doesn't, but that's it. It's not supposed replace meeting other people.

Now,

• I totally think that in Zoom's case, there's no real reason to bring employees to the office, and this is just a corporate power play.
• I also think there's no point for Zoom to exist when there are great open source alternatives.

But the particular argument this article lays out just makes no sense.

Oh, no, bad guys can use [insert new technology here], too!

More seriously, yes. And it can also be used to detect scams and spam.

Frankly, I think the biggest way this will influence the result is not because people will be influenced by the language they used, but because it will cause the left to focus on semantics instead of substantive issues.

However, the bitwarden extension autofill isn't as good as the one built into Firefox or Chrome. It doesn't work well on some sites and you have to copy manually.

Honestly, if you're new to linux, the best way to recover from borked GRUB is to reinstall linux. You can boot from a live CD, mount positions, chroot, and fix it, but I found that more difficult than reinstall until I had a bunch of experience.

Yes, there's little interesting content there. But I think if you get a code for the extra-cheap bundle that's less than $20/year, it can be worth it.

That doesn't bypass anything. Though it runs the risk of putting AGPL code in your proprietary app if copilot decides to copy it verbatim - thereby making the whole thing AGPL'd.

That's the way. However, I'd like to add that when I used Debian, I regularly got leftovers after uninstalling things, especially when removing big things work lots of dependencies. So expect some dependencies to remain.

Maybe it doesn't have to be a criminal conviction - but there must be some process to review the evidence, and establish that the attempt happened.

As much as I hate Trump - wouldn't he need to be convicted for trying to overturn the election before he loses any civil rights over that?

Germany is determined to remove any systems from its telecoms networks

If only Huawei was the only such system...