The Dangers of Microsoft Pluton

While I disagree with the author's opinion, it was very informative for me.

Not mentioned in the article - but it begs the question, could this have something to do with Microsoft's insistence that everyone, even Pro users in the next update, use a Microsoft Account with Windows 11? If Pluton (or Pluton 2, someday) could be tied to a Microsoft Account, wouldn't that be something.

It's I think a general desire for end to end traceability and therefore accountability, which both managers and developers tend to like, albeit for different reasons.

Is it okay to talk about language as a meta-topic? I try not to stray too far into that, since it’s usually boring for readers. But one thing I was surprised to learn is that “begs the question” is only correct when you’re describing a chain of circular logic. “Raises the question” is apparently the right term for the general case. I felt a little duped, since I’d been using “begs the question” for years without looking into its origins.

But of course, that begs the question of whether language is defined by how people use it. :)

I purposefully "misuse" the phrase "begging the question" to mean the same thing as the grandparent, because I want to do my part to change what this phrase means.

Using "begging the question" to mean something as obscure and unintuitive (as in, it's basically an idiom that must be explained first) as "your question originates from circular logic" is a waste of prime dictionary space.

This term should mean "there is a question that is so blindingly obvious regarding the situation at hand, that it simply begs to be asked" - so, more or less what everyone who didn't have the term explained to them, thinks it's supposed to mean.

"'When I use a word,' Humpty-Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'"

Imagine a future where everyone requires an online account to use a computer, where every computer can only run software approved by the few large corporations that issue those accounts, and where a government or governments have those corporations on speed dial, to periodically "suggest" to them which software and which users should be allowed to transact and communicate online.

If you can imagine that, then imagine that every human is given a number which is equivalent to (or even more significant than) their name, and that name/number appears in certificates which are signed by the name/number of a certificate authority's key. By accepting the signature, you have to accept an EULA that takes an hour to read, so no one does, and it changes every month anyway, with future changes automatically binding you.

Does that sound like a world where people are free?