I disagree that it’s so simple, 10 is different because for a long time it was unclear 11 was ever going to happen, the biyearly releases were the new versions. For most of the other Windows versions they didn’t stop receiving security update until well after the next version or two were out. 11 will have only been out for 4 years when support for 10 theoretically stops.

At least I attempted to looked it up, rather than everyone else who assumed it just can’t happen at all while also knowing nothing about it.

No, what I’m saying is that a quick Google suggests you can get jail time for this in Colombia even if Apple is the one suing. Obviously I’m not an expert, but my point is that Apple’s threat of possible jail time is not completely unfounded, you can’t assume it just works like the US legal system.

I think you might be making too many assumptions about the Colombian legal system.

The irony is that it very well could have been a disadvantage for her to get picked. The incumbent advantage isn’t really a thing for people appointed to the seat, and she’d be stuck doing Senate things for the next year instead of campaigning.

Keep in mind it’s not an all or nothing thing, they’ll assign percentages of fault. It’s also important that they name name basically anybody involved because the others will try to blame Google to shift fault off of themselves.

Effectively you want to name everybody possible so that they all fight it out.

Much of what she was brought on to do (negotiating with advertisers I guess) isn’t really public facing, so from that respect it’s not that surprising that she appears to be doing nothing. I also think she’s not taking the L yet, if things get even worse Musk may blame her as an excuse to walk things back (“I was following her advice” or whatever).

Maybe, but there’s a market out there for CEOs who are willing to take the blame for some unpopular decisions and then walk away. There’s also something to be said that “-50%” might actually be an improvement over where it was before she was hired, and the bad decisions weren’t hers.

My point is that the data on here is purposely shared with every other federated instance, there’s no semblance of privacy and your data is shared with hundreds or likely thousands of admins by the time it’s done (more and more as the network grows). There’s no reason to trust that every admin will keep that information private, some people are already talking about putting up services to expose all the hidden information (in the name of “transparency”). It’s simply trivial for Meta or anybody else to get copies of the data because there’s no real protection from it unless you’re making your instance an island (and that’s an island from everybody, not just one specifically known to be Meta).

Fundimentally none of the data on here is private, it’s not designed to be private.