Opening a terminal in admin window which means any commands you put in that windows will always have admin privilege, no matter what.
What does Sudo is to only provide the root/admin privileges for specific inputted command. Once it is done, it goes back to user privileges. This way, the terminal window didn't need to end the session to go back to user privileges.
"Admin"'s identity is the resource you're asking permissions to use. If don't want identities, are you going to manually authorize every file that needs to be interacted with? For a recursive delete of thousands of files?
Sudo also allows you to control which commands can be elevated to admin.
It also lets you elevate to admin without knowing the admin password, you elevate with your normal account password. Effectively, some commands can execute as admin, but the user generally cannot.
So you can allow limited administration without giving everything away.
Good thing they're keeping the admin terminal too so you can just keep using that.
Personally I think it's way more likely the admin command is the one off like installing something, changing a setting and then everything else before and between it are user commands that don't need to be in admin space most of the time.
You can boot usb from UEFI. The only tool that I found is best to handle is Rufus. I used it to clean install my Windows through UEFI. Even Linux Live USB works. BalenaEtcher gives me problems, Rufus does it well for me.
Also I remember there is a setting in UEFI to allow booting from USB.
It's possible, I've done it, it just involved a lot more steps. Simpler when I can `fdisk && mkfs && debootstrap` to make a key. Plus then I need to keep two bootable usb keys, I think... it's just... "Who ordered this??"
There are both side of the coin when it comes to at-will employments with layoff. They can use it to get rid of high paying employees to hire lowest quality of employee for little pay that will affects the quality of their product. And they don't care because it looks good on their balance sheet. And there is no recourse for high paying employee against the company (unless they have a signed contracts that have a clause to prevent this).
My former job laidoff few people because of high paying salary. They got high salary because positions required a specialized and niche knowledge for their jobs. They are good at what they do which earned their justification for high paying. It took the company a year to hire a barely qualified person because they don't want to increase the pay after declined job offers from multiple potential candidates.
I found Edge to be useful for Enterprise/Business environment. My previous job uses Office 365 E3 (and their email server) and entrenched with them for various external services such as MS Authenticator for SSO. It is easier use Edge for SSO since I don't need to keep typing out the complex password for my job. Whenever the password prompt show up in Edge, I click my work email account and it automatically log me in. I have one desktop and one laptop for remote work, it simpler with SharePoint/OneDrive to keep my work data synced between both computer. Edge have their uses in Enterprise/Business setting.
For personal use, I rarely use Edge. I only uses them for websites that have an issue with my Firefox with uBO and strict CORS. I avoid Chrome like it is a plague.
I use Firefox for Zoom and when I encounter a website that misbehaves on Safari (and for a couple of things that I need to use that are wholly separate from the rest of my browsing experience).
Otherwise, I use Safari.
The original article's assertion that Safari does not respect your privacy is so far from the truth that the rest of the article is questionable.
If I pay for the storage, then it is my drive and my data.
The article didn't say anything about the free or paid GDrive accounts. If it is a free account, then that is up for debate. If it impacts the paid consumers, they paid for the service and it is their data.
do you have a link to the legal decisions that confirm this is the case and establish what rights the customer actually has in this relationship?
What rights do the contracts that a paid customer signs with Google say they have over the data?
From what I see in the free terms of service: "You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours." which is neat.
You have the rights to your data, but there doesn't seem to be any stated obligation for Google to keep that data or make it accessible to you.
> You have the rights to your data, but there doesn't seem to be any stated obligation for Google to keep that data or make it accessible to you.
On a paid account, clearly that's part of the contracted service being provided. There is absolutely an obligation to provide the service you took payment for.
But no, in general in our society, gratis products aren't required to carry warranties, for obvious reasons (no one would provide them if so).
>On a paid account, clearly that's part of the contracted service being provided. There is absolutely an obligation to provide the service you took payment for.
yeah, unless there is a statement sort of like
"We reserve the right to terminate accounts in the case of violation of terms of service as determined by our automated systems"
in which case you would need to go to court and get a determination that clearly that is wrong and they can't do that, in general in American society that's how things work.
That seems like a digression, though, since obviously none of these putative Drive customers reporting being notified of a TOS violation. I didn't say "service providers must provide service under all circumstances", I just said they had to follow their contracts, which demand provision of service under whatever terms the parties agreed on.
It would be nice if Windows Defender tone down their on-the-fly aggressive scanning for anything I/O related. For any I/O activity, it regularly consumes up to 30% of my CPU. Moving files to a different directory rev up Windows Defender even it scans the folder in the past.
I wish there is a granular control over Windows Defenders in a way that it would not be aggressive with every I/O activity. I would assume that Microsoft intentionally did this due to rise of randomware attacks and we unfortunately have inept people who mindlessly clicking anything. And they don't want to be liable for being lax.
YouTube will re-encode videos to optimize their playback experience. Which means there will be a generational loss in the re-encoding. YT have maximum requirements for their playback. If the source file exceed those, they will lower it.
Handbrake is useful for lots of things. My partner have to upload his dissertation defense video and the university have strict requirement of the formats. He used Handbrake to convert his video to their formats of choice. It works well for him on his aging 10 years old MacBook Pro (upgraded the HDD to SSD years ago).
