MichaelWd

I did enjoy the "did you not warn me because you assumed I knew, or to f**k with me?"

I wouldn't disagree. It is not fast but it is functional. 
 
If you want to talk politics about whether governments should force private companies to provide a certain service, no problem, I don't think that's what this article is about?

Wow, again?  Did they not have a breach just like this (or worse even) not that long ago?
 
Yes, yes they did.  I hate to quote the verge but it's the first link
https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/19/16908990/oneplus-credit-card-security-breach-investigation-40000-affected

Can you retype or edit this? The text is cropped out on my phone

Exactly this.
 
Browsing the web, listening to podcasts and taking calls is NOT getting exponentially more demanding. No phone should require replacement every 3 years. Limited security fixes is just another manifestation of planned obsolescence. This is like buying a printer and the supplier refusing to sell you compatible ink after three years.
 
Ridiculous
 
 

Exactly this.
 
Browsing the web, listening to podcasts and taking calls is NOT getting exponentially more demanding. No phone should require replacement every 3 years. Limited security fixes is just another manifestation of planned obsolescence. This is like buying a printer and the supplier refusing to sell you compatible ink after three years.
 
Ridiculous
 
 

And here is one of the real issues with climate change and dickheads protesting.  We want to force wind and solar on everyone,  yet people still think it's not only  acceptable but should be considered normal to upgrade their phone every 2-3 years.     Security should be a thing until those phones are simply no longer able to function, then and only then should users be given a reason to upgrade.  e-waste is already a problem without people unnecessarily making it worse buy endorsing a companies desire to make phones disposable items. 

This isn't 2010, there's no reason to throw your smartphone away after only a few years anymore unless you're gaming or something. Most people just need a battery replacement. How much more demanding do you think the Facebook app is going to get?

I wouldn't disagree. It is not fast but it is functional. 
 
If you want to talk politics about whether governments should force private companies to provide a certain service, no problem, I don't think that's what this article is about?

Oh man I didn't even look that far down. 
Thanks

Threadripper price is a bit high considering new motherboards are required to get them working.
 
The 3950x is at least where everyone thought it would be price and performance wise, so thats good news. Recommending a 280mm rad or higher is understandable, although an "Eco" mode for smaller systems is actually nice. 
 
But can we talk about a $50 dual core with hyper threaded CPU thats overclockable for a second? Holy shit
 
AMD seems to be a bit more honest in their promotional materials, BUT ALWAYS WAIT FOR REVIEWS

Everyone: We want a new Crysis that really pushes modern hardware!
 
Rockstar: releases game that looks amazing where ultra is actually difficult to run for current gen 
 
Everyone: muh optimizations! 

Oh man I didn't even look that far down. 
Thanks

Why do the investments need to be above a certain threshold before misleading consumers becomes wrong? 

Oh man I didn't even look that far down. 
Thanks

The 1070 is there in the graphs. It just performs about 1 fps faster than the RX 580

I don't want to downplay bullying, which of course is serious, but if they are making fun of an old PC like how thick it is, that's pretty standard joking around at least throughout my childhood.
 
Like it would have annoyed me too if I couldn't get an upgrade, but maybe not worth losing friends over?
 
Also separately op just said the money is from his parents so of course they can have some control over what that is spent on. Sucks but that's life. They are doing parenting and not trying to be mean.

I would like to see amd fix his recent products first. 5700xt can be pain in the ass

You can still make good profit in the correct areas

In a large organisation, these payments are likely to be authorised locally, so it is company money spent on IT but not accounted for in the IT budget. So it is not properly being accounted for. Also the license will almost certainly be lost when the local user moves on. And for support, the IT staff may have agreed SLAs with each area to support on "Microsoft applications" or something and would therefore be caught supporting this, even if they did not authorise (and therefore no training on it).
 
It just doesn't really fit in with a large company's IT policy. At all.
 

In a large organisation, these payments are likely to be authorised locally, so it is company money spent on IT but not accounted for in the IT budget. So it is not properly being accounted for. Also the license will almost certainly be lost when the local user moves on. And for support, the IT staff may have agreed SLAs with each area to support on "Microsoft applications" or something and would therefore be caught supporting this, even if they did not authorise (and therefore no training on it).
 
It just doesn't really fit in with a large company's IT policy. At all.
 

In a large organisation, these payments are likely to be authorised locally, so it is company money spent on IT but not accounted for in the IT budget. So it is not properly being accounted for. Also the license will almost certainly be lost when the local user moves on. And for support, the IT staff may have agreed SLAs with each area to support on "Microsoft applications" or something and would therefore be caught supporting this, even if they did not authorise (and therefore no training on it).
 
It just doesn't really fit in with a large company's IT policy. At all.
 

In a large organisation, these payments are likely to be authorised locally, so it is company money spent on IT but not accounted for in the IT budget. So it is not properly being accounted for. Also the license will almost certainly be lost when the local user moves on. And for support, the IT staff may have agreed SLAs with each area to support on "Microsoft applications" or something and would therefore be caught supporting this, even if they did not authorise (and therefore no training on it).
 
It just doesn't really fit in with a large company's IT policy. At all.
 

In a large organisation, these payments are likely to be authorised locally, so it is company money spent on IT but not accounted for in the IT budget. So it is not properly being accounted for. Also the license will almost certainly be lost when the local user moves on. And for support, the IT staff may have agreed SLAs with each area to support on "Microsoft applications" or something and would therefore be caught supporting this, even if they did not authorise (and therefore no training on it).
 
It just doesn't really fit in with a large company's IT policy. At all.
 

It's not employees buying O365 for personal use or whatever, it's employees buying Office licenses for tools, without approval, to add to their company provided suite. It's called shadow IT and it's a pain in the ass when users circumvent official policy.