It's unclear that Microsoft providing up-to-date guidance on the continued leverage of various professional features included with your Windows license qualifies as "nagging". I would double-check if you actually have experienced this.
The 3-2-1 backup strategy requires an offsite backup. It's unclear what advantage was forseen by the homeless when the decision was made to forgo this guidance.
Nothing in the rules say anything about malice or incompetence. The most charitable interpretation I could find for your assertion is this line:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Of course, the subject of this is a user's comments, not a corporation. I suggest you read the rules a little more thoroughly before accusing others of breaking them.
It's incorrect to assume that a Windows application will open the Find interface via the keyboard shortcut Ctrl+F. In Microsoft Word that shortcut opens the Navigation interface, and Find is now Advanced Find, which can be opened simply and intuitively via Ctrl+H - Alt+D.
Frequent revalidation training in the leverage of Microsoft products is something that would have helped your person avoid looking unprofessional.
It's unclear how the decision was made during the commissioning of your organization's email product that Hotmail met the requirements for validation. Is it the case that the offering of quality support was not included in the Requirements Trace Specification?
A review of Tutanota's product was conducted and it was found that this service fails to scan emails for highly dangerous virus links. Therefore it stands to reason that Microsoft, which also provides an enterprise-grade email service, is making a professional decision to protect its users.
Surely it would be Microsoft's job to scan incoming mail for virus links, as opposed to just blocking the whole domain? (And all of this is rather an aside, since it appears likely that this is caused by something wholly unrelated to malware.)
Compelling evidence that defining the word omnichannel is within scope of this meeting has failed to be presented by your person at this time. A re-training activity has been added to your queue.
Given that Tesla fires are so rare that they're a news story every time, it doesn't make sense to sacrifice Tesla families safety by giving children the opportunity to open doors while the car is moving.
my guess is that Terminal, powerToys, and WSL were approved by MS management because they wold contribute to more sales to advanced users who would otherwise choose Linux. the same cannot be said about PDF viewers.
I also find it strange that MS keeps pushing people to use Edge as a PDF reader. only goes to show how valuable user data is, or rather, how desperate MS is for such data.
> As such, Microsoft tries as much as possible to avoid "bringing in" any features that are currently being sold as products by companies in their developer ecosystem (which would deprive those developers of revenue, and thus deprive them of revenue.) Acrobat charges to rotate images? Better not offer native image rotation.
to be fair, Apple does the same. lots of functionalities that you would expect from macOS are left for third party apps to provide. for example, changing external monitor volume, a proper window management that snaps windows to edges/corners, remembering the position of apps in different desktops, enabling font smoothing, enabling HiDPI on external displays, limiting apps’ CPU usage, etc.
Each of them costs like $15 which adds up to hundreds. But even if money wasn’t a problem, it’d still be concerning to use hacky methods that are sometimes closed source too.
As Balmer put it: developers, developers, developers.
In other words: the purpose of (consumer) Windows isn't to make money for Microsoft; the purpose of (consumer) Windows is to create a sales channel — "Windows users" — for Windows developers like Adobe to sell their Windows software products into.
Microsoft then makes their money off those very same Windows developers, through corporate Windows licensing, Office subscriptions, Azure, etc.
As such, Microsoft tries as much as possible to avoid "bringing in" any features that are currently being sold as products by companies in their developer ecosystem (which would deprive those developers of revenue, and thus deprive them of revenue.) Acrobat charges to rotate images? Better not offer native image rotation.
This is the impression I have from Wordpress as well. Some of the most basic features you would expect a blogging platform or a brochure site creator to have out of the box are conspicuously missing, and I strongly suspect the reason for their absence is NOT for the sake of keeping the base WP install small, but rather because there are paid plugins in the Wordpress Plugin Directory which fulfill those basic functions, thereby providing a marketplace to incentivize WP development, regardless of how basic the functionality that you're looking for is. There is indeed a vibrant WP marketplace as a consequence of this, but should I really have to install a 3rd party library to get simple modal windows? Regardless of how much popups suck, they're something that every commercial client asks for at some point, and instead of having a single way of doing it which is official, well-maintained, and trustworthy, you have to shop around and try out every mystery devshop's kneecapped freemium version, many of which pelt you with banner ads and/or conflict with another shitty-ass plugin! It's very much a developer-centric way of doing things. Fine, that's a worthy cause, especially since Wordpress is free; but more often than not, the best solution is to invest in one of the plugin "suites" which do more than one thing without interfering with other things. As much as I like composition and "do one thing and do it well," if you try to go down that path with Wordpress plugins, you're asking for it.
