There is another major factor that could cause scores to rise globally: ChatGPT. It is now good enough that it can explain topics to students at home, like a private tutor.

Why should they get rid of the Linux kernel?

Because Microsoft contributions, including being one of the Rust on the kernel sponsors.

How will Microsoft or the US government stop anyone from using those Linux contributions now that they've been contributed?

They're GPL licenced. They're open source. They're freely available.

They're sanction proof.

No, the point is precisely what Microsoft can do. This is all about sovereignty of the computers you use, the software you use, and control of your data.

But I'm glad to see you concede the point.

As long as we depends on any Microsoft technology, the dependency won't go away, thinking the problem is only Windows and Office is throwing to the eyes of the public.

To achieve Microsoft freedom, you have to have 100% Microsoft free technology, from computer, operating systems, programming languages, hosting services, communication platform, social media, job platforms, the whole deal.

You've already conceded the point that once it's contributed to Linux Microsoft can't yank it away again.

If Microsoft wants to stop contributing that's perfectly fine. Others will maintain it.

That's what's great about big open source projects like Linux. It's another great project originating in Europe.

I wasn't expecting to read a Hyperion reference in this thread, such a great book.

(And if you haven't read the book you can guess what could possibly go wrong with this setup.)

I feel like that house was a _bit_ of a Chekhov's gun; I think it was the first point in the story where what was going to happen became clear to me.

(This wasn't Simmons' invention, incidentally; Larry Niven did it first.)

It also sounds like a plumbing nightmare to build.

Humble Bundle

The most common activation keys in a bundle are ... Steam keys.

> This EU law has made security far worse.

Stop blaming the EU. They didn't make security worse. It's Google and the other manufacturers who decided to respond to this law by using a loophole that made security far worse.

Before the EU law, Android would release monthly bulletins, and patches would take about a month before being released on Pixel devices, once known as 'best in class' security. GrapheneOS have themselves admitted this has changed from 1 month to 4. This has been done to comply with this new EU law.

Now, we have patches already for March 2026 in November 2025. Once the March 2025 patches are shipped by Google, OEMs have 4 months for all OEMs to ship it (deadline being July 2026).

Consider this scenario:

Patch for bug lands January 2026. Google decides to either release a Pixel OS update or release the source code in 8 months time containing this patch for whatever reason. Then a 4 month timer starts for all OEMs to ship that patch. Meaning a patch that has existed from January 2026 can now be shipped by January 2027 under this system and fully comply with the law. This patch may be under active exploit as OEMs have leaked it which again, GrapheneOS have admitted is happening.

Previously, patches would be landing within the month. All google must do is ensure this patch is not included in any pixel OS update or public source code release.

Yes, Google is responsible, but when the EU touts laws as fining 4% of global turnover (in the case of GDPR), then they are going to be taken seriously, which means OEMs demanding Google not release the update for Pixel/source code until they are ready and use this loophole as they are doing.

The loser is ultimately the end user who has a weaker more exploitable device for months.

How much?

If it's not free for enterprises then it's not open source, according to the commonly accepted definition.

Being open source and being free are entirely different things though.

You can view, read the code = open source.

The latter is about money.

Open source is not only about being able to read the code: the open source definition includes "Free Redistribution" (anyone who has the software can give away copies, and get paid if they want) and "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor", among other requirements.

These two requirements combined make it impossible to distribute open source software with the provision that it is only free for individuals.

"Plug and stay" is also a horrible idea at a time when laptops routinely come with only 2 USB ports.

Does the QR code that you use when boarding have to be the same QR code that you use before security, though?