No, of course they didn’t invent the word. But they popularized the composition of the bundle (word processor, spreadsheet, presentation software) and the idea of calling that bundle an “office suite,” a pattern which almost all such suites still follow today.
Fair enough, I stand corrected.
Fair, which is why anecdote isn’t the singular of data I guess.
Fair enough.
I don’t think that’s the case, but I only have anecdotal evidence for that. I haven’t ever worked at a company where Office was the preference, and the last three I’ve worked at didn’t even offer it as a default. And I’m in my forties.
As far as I can tell, Google Docs is at feature-parity with Office, and yes, is incredibly popular. The contest might be a bit more even in the corporate space, but at the last three companies I’ve worked for, GSuite was the default and you had to ask for Office.
They acquired practically everything they have. They haven’t created anything truly new since the mid-90s.
I think that Microsoft is paralyzed by corporate culture. Everything needs to be signed off by multiple stakeholders, everything needs a dozen meetings before anyone can make a decision, and as a result the stuff that’s “good enough” (read: still making money) languishes–or worse, becomes a dumping ground for whatever corporate pet project is exciting–until it’s unacceptably awful, mired under decades of technical debt and spaghetti code fixes.
At least they have the sense to let the successful companies they acquire manage themselves. There’s no AI in Minecraft, for instance.
And they had Skype, which was practically a genericized trademark for “video call–” until first Apple’s FaceTime and then Zoom utterly took them apart.
And they had Office, which defined the product category so completely that it’s called “office software–” but then Google Docs took them apart on a molecular level.
Microsoft is the king of snatching defeat from the clutching jaws of victory.
That’s the excuse. But phone numbers tied to names are available all over the dark web and the light web—that’s a fundamentally worthless data point by now. They don’t actually want that, they’re just saying it so you think it’s for scam prevention.
If it were, they wouldn’t tie it to storage space. That doesn’t matter to scammers and spammers; they’d require it for sending to more than x recipients per month, or for API access, or for any number of other things. The one thing spammers and scammers don’t need is storage space. They just need a trusted email gateway and IP address.
Storage is incredibly cheap, though. If Google used S3, the cost for a 15GB account would be pennies a year, and since they host their own architecture it can be orders of magnitude less. This isn’t about recouping costs. This is just about shaking users down for more subscription money.
Yeah, this here is exactly the reason why anytime I have to migrate from any piece of software I’m migrating to something open source and standards compliant.
Interesting. I’m probably only a few years older than you, and even though I started reading xkcd in college (probably about 2-3 years after it started), it somehow simultaneously seems like a scrappy startup comic just coming into its own, and also a venerable internet institution.
Pilots are good at handling trajectories, high speed, and ballistics, and they can handle it in novel situations.
Randall isn’t saying that the internet is only 24 (I mean, he’s been making xkcd for 20 years and was on it before that). He’s saying that his mental conception of the internet is still “new exciting thing,” and the fact that it’s been around for 24 years means that he’s currently being haunted.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. The one on the right was written by the five year old, by his own hand (and honestly looks a bit too nice for him, too, but as a cartoonist she does have to make it reasonably legible for the audience). The one on the left, conversely, was transcribed by the two-year-old’s teacher, during an interview wherein she asked him questions and wrote his answers down. The “see me” is a message for the parent, not the student.
Edit: I do think that the placement of the kids in the bottom panels does confuse this a bit. The younger kid is on the mom’s left, so it’s in the first panel; but then we switch to the other perspective and see them from a third person viewpoint where he appears on the right side of the frame (even though he’s still on his mom’s left).
I haven’t been on Reddit in at least two years, maybe longer. I can’t remember and honestly don’t care enough to check. But that sort of statement sounds exactly what I would tell my staff to have the bots write when accused of being bots, if I worked at an agency aiming to stir up dissent on social media.
So how about this: if you want to prove that you’re not a bot, try being kind and thoughtful about what you say, be introspective about your edgelord views, and actually write something that has respect for the dignity of human life.
I don’t know that a Trump voter holds the same culpability as a Confederate soldier.