You are vulnerable to inside threats. In a small org it may not be a factor but when you get to enterprise environments you have segregated permissions. I think Edward Snowden is a hero but that aside, he is a poster child of why you are supposed to have everyone locked down into just the access they need.
You are stating an opinion not submitting to a peer review journal, police report, or even a paper for a grade. You might be more credible with citations provided but not having them doesn't make you a troll. You can be correct without citations, you can be incorrect with citations, and there are no shortage of opinions which can not be decisively ever be determined are correct or not.
People don't need to provide citations every time they give their 2 cents and what the hell do citations have to do with trolling anyway? I've seen trolls bust out citations many times when stirring up their shit.
"how would concealing its use from your partner empower you"
In the same way being able to take the pill while claiming to try to get pregnant empowers women. Even more so, it would allow you to let them feel secure thinking they are holding the reigns. This keeps a partner treating you the way they treat you while trying to trap you for as long as possible before they give up and move on. That isn't a shit move, it's just turnabout since it only matters if they are trying to trap you in the first place. Unfortunately, kids aren't the only way they try to trap you. As the woman progressively feels more secure in the relationship they dial all the good stuff down.
"How is it worse than the current situation?"
It isn't worse than the current situation. But the current situation is the current situation primarily for the same reason I'm mentioning. A male pill has been possible just as long as a female pill, women have used their highly vocal political majority to prevent one with the argument that men would "take advantage of women."
I doubt it, the application method is about making sure men aren't actually empowered to control their own reproductive destiny. Rubbing it on your penis would carry the same problem, it could be tasted or otherwise detected.
"If I wanted offspring with my genes I could freeze some sperm before."
Those kind of things are very expensive and have very poor probabilities of success alongside high risk of multiples if they do succeed.
Probably the biggest reason is to empower men to control their own reproductive destiny without requiring us to have sex with a condom instead of a partner. If you are not a heterosexual male then you don't know what it is like dealing with some of the females in our society. They will tell you they are taking the pill and then skip it, pretending they got pregnant anyway and they will poke holes in condoms. Hell, a baby crazed female will simply apply inappropriate pressure on a guy who doesn't want kids and essentially force him. For the past 50 years our society has been entirely about empowering women and pretending there is no limit to how much you can tip the scales in that direction while still pretending men are the evil and powerful oppressors.
This gel is just another example. You'll note the application method requires a partner... so you are still subject to your partner knowing you are using it and actually applying the right thing.
No, this is a common misunderstanding combined with a bit of an urban legend. There is no actual obligation to accept the currency accept by the Federal reserve which issued the promissory notes. There is plenty of precedent for others to refuse, stores will no longer accept a bag full of pennies, no shortage of gambling establishments will only accept their own tokens, coupons, and chips. The USPS will only accept their stamps. In this case, US dollars are being accepted, they just aren't accepting cash. This is no different than a gas station that won't take hundreds.
No, the draft is a bad use of law. There is no ethical use of a law forcing people to participate in murder or risk their lives for a cause they don't believe in.
"because they feel more important then their fellow human beings"
Everyone should be more important than their fellow human beings... to themselves. The false rationale is when every self-interest is treated as if it has equal value. Some things cost you very little and would mean the world to someone else. Other times a sacrifice is something you can bear and it is an investment in goodwill or supports a cause or ideal that has itself grown to a greater importance to you than the sacrifice, since it is still pursuing what you want that is still self-interest.
The best use of law is to protect your ability to make those choices and decide what acting civilized means for yourself. The next best use is ensuring those who have drive and merit succeed in proportion while those who lack those things are relatively less successful. This means encouraging automated coffee kiosks for artisian coffee that a hard working middle class person could open. This means encouraging the kind of climate where that homeless man who can't afford the coffee can show the slightest bit of drive and instead press the apply button and get a job restocking the machine.
No other person is better than you. There is no reason you should be putting others on a pedestal taller than your own. There are situations where I will put others ahead of myself but not when all else is equal, when all else is equal the deciding vote should be for yourself. No matter what other teams you are on, everyone should be on team self! That is just survival instinct and self-worth 101.
And for the record, the slick suit wearing scumbag middle-man peddling the franchises and taking a profit that means they are more expensive and there are less of them and the homeless guy who can't be bothered to apply... I can't see giving either much consideration short of "being human" and the very simple reason that matters is all of us are human. The higher we make the point that is the lowest a human can fall, the higher that point is if unforeseeable circumstances strike and we or those we care about fall. Personally, I'd hope that one day we set that bar somewhere in the crappy one bedroom neighborhood rather than sleeping in your own piss and vomit by an illegal burn barrel but we need to remember that aside from the mentally ill, almost all of those people could have some kind of shitty part time job if those choose to do that instead.
None of this means a whole lot in the many places around the world where they've started actually using bitcoin as a currency, you know, for real. And that userbase is growing. What you are seeing here is nothing more than growing pains induced by speculators with deep pockets.
Just like an open source project, bitcoin won't go anywhere. The ACTUAL core base will continue using it, once those speculators have bailed stability will return and when bitcoin is still around and has maintained stability for a few years a small amount of speculation will return and it will grow steadily for a few more. Then once again there will be an investment bubble but one that will be a little less extreme. Rinse and repeat, with everything growing more stable and consistent with each round.
The wants of the homeless do not outweigh the wants of these people. There is no justifiable reason why one should cater to the other.
Race is an arbitrary indicator of nothing meaningful. The only reason how something impacts one racial group should be examined is if it is the result of some deliberate action for precisely the reason that race is not a meaningful indicator or basis for action! Incidental or coincidental impact some significant quantity of people who self identify as one race or another or share some random physical trait isn't a valid reason to do anything in its own right.
Or to push a political agenda and force people to act in a manner there isn't any sane reason they should. We have laws to keep someone from something underhanded, dishonest, keep a level playing field, etc. The law doesn't exist to force people to sacrifice themselves for others as if they should value those others more highly than themselves!
This entire concept is valuing a group that is pitiable over a group that is actually productive and contributing to society, not because there is any actual need but just for the sake of doing it.
The wants of the homeless buying $5 coffee at Starbucks do not outweigh the wants of a small business owner putting his or life savings into building a drive through self serve coffee kiosk. Just because we need to recognize the poor man as human and having rights doesn't mean those rights outweigh someone elses. It certainly doesn't mean we should support measures that will result in more people who are poor and homeless. What the hell kind of thinking is that?
This guys concept of racism is worse. Racism is an attitude, it is a feeling. The entire reason it is wrong is that race is artificial concept and not a valid way to group people in the first place. There is absolutely no reason anything should be done or not done because of how it INCIDENTALLY impacts some quantity of people who happen to fall in a completely arbitrary and meaningless category by accident of birth.
It sounds like neither of you understands what that means. In one sense it refers to the fact that fed notes are considered "legal money" and can legally be used in place of the gold and silver the constitution requires but the courts have interpreted it as not requiring.
The notes are legal tender for debt because US currency is based on debt, all federal reserve notes represent debt and are promissory notes. Essentially, they are IOU's the federal reserve issues at its discretion. Each dollar note represent a "dollar" of debt. Although the President nominates the chairperson, the Fed is a private bank and as Donald Trump recently discovered to his dismay, they do what they want and make a profit to a handful of private interests.
A token nod to the actual law is that the treasury prints the bills but the Fed buys them at printing cost and the Fed issues digital currency at will.
Because they've never been in your shoes? Hold on, remind me, when were you in their shoes? And if you one of the people who has enjoyed the actual privilege of economic advantage you don't count.
There isn't a woman or minority male in this country who understands what it is like to not deal with real and imagined "notice' and judgement but actual systemic policies of discrimination, as a white male you have a higher bar for academic requirements (or your school does, to get funding), you are a disadvantage for scholarships and funding and also need to have higher academic achievement to get into the same schools because minorities and women are given preference, you have the same problem when it comes to employment. Oh and any problem you have socially acceptable to laugh off as "privilege."
When you go to the bathroom are you thinking about others? How about when you make yourself a bowl of soup? Are you thinking of others when you deposit your paycheck? And no, not your family/household, that is just a larger group of self because it is all one closely dependent team.
Is there some particular reason these guys should be "thinking of others" in their moves while they try to eek out a living? It isn't like they are closing the doors of cash businesses. Those others like you and those you are talking about obviously aren't thinking about the small business attempts that will be bankrupt and abject failures because of something like this. No doubt you see some rich guy in a slick suit working from a skyrise in your head, in reality there might be some of those overseeing franchising or something but the people who are hurt are John, Jose, Jamel, Sandy, and Sarah who saved up to get enough money just to turn around and borrow the rest to start that franchise. Now they'll lose their life savings or simply not have this lower startup cost opportunity and never break out of the hamster wheel, the rich guy in a slick suit will just do something else. This is especially damaging for John since he already had to work the hardest and save the most because everyone else on the list gets waived requirements and preference for SBA loans while John who grew up on food stamps is 'privileged' even though he systematically has to outperform everyone else to get the same opportunities.
We shouldn't be judgmental of their spending habits but we should dictate to the owners of the establishments without regard for their "reasons?"
There are no shortage of options if you have cash, particularly options which are viable for people with low income.
There are rules about employment discrimination and even those are morally questionable when it comes to privately held and small businesses. Really, some measure of that is probably fair with the liability immunity that comes with incorporating but since that is basically mandatory in today's legal climate even that argument is weak. A corporation can be two or three people with a convenience store and with preference for minorities and women for SBA loans there is no particular reason these type of establishments shouldn't be able to serve who they want and hire who they want or not hire who they don't want. People have a right to be morons, bigots, or just pick the qualified worker they'd prefer to have around regardless of reason. This shouldn't be an issue because the barrier to start one up with a different policy is ridiculously low.
For mass scale employers of big publicly traded companies it's a different game altogether on hiring but they are still in business to make a profit and it is one thing to require a neutral or less profitable path, in today's society it may well cost some businesses more to accept cash than they take in. Sorry Tony, you're just going to have to start laundering your walking money as well.
Riiiiigggghhhtttt.... first of all, even if that were true, the information would be drowned in the mass of uninformed and uneducated actions of most users who have no idea what they are doing. That is a rapid race to the bottom. If those users were magically gifted with understanding they would use different features and use the system in different ways, the ideal should be to strip out the uninformed usage and bring the system closer and closer to a power user configuration out of the box. Then the system is configured as a power user would configure it out of the box and the more powerful tools become the things all users learn in the first place.
Lets be honest, windows has gotten so bloated and terrible that even Microsoft avoids using it where they can. Instead of fixing it they just figure they'll monetize the suckers as much as they can as long as they can with the assumption that everything is just going to be a dumb browser host at some point. Then we'll all basically be terminal users using mainframes... err cloud services and have come full circle but with much more bloated and inefficient protocols.
"Everytime an OS comes out, the haters start claiming crap and usually it's either BS or self inflicted. And if (big IF) it has happened to you then try updating your drivers. I have more than 10 machines running win10 plus one running insider. No ads ever. The main issue I've run into a couple drivers causing issues and that's the Manufacturer's fault, not Microsoft's. I also had to modify the bios on my acer e 15 to turn AMD-V on, again not Microsoft's fault. You can easy remove apps using powershell and its easy to set it up for friends to use. I dont have mail, edge and other crap apps installed. You can easy disable Cortana and most of the telemetry."
First of all not being able to disable telemetry entirely means you all your windows 10 systems are broken but telemetry shouldn't exist in the first place. For the rest, you do realize we aren't a bunch of old men who can't figure it out or luddites. You aren't a luddite just because you oppose some "new" technology, you SHOULD oppose "new technology" that doesn't bring benefits and change for its own sake.
Your argument basically boils down to "I managed to make the systems all function as designed." While I do realize Microsoft has historically set the bar so low that the system actually functioning is impressive for them, it isn't impressive in general. We are complaining about the design itself, the fact the horrible design functions as designed isn't the point, it is a terrible design to interact with. An XP pro or even win 7 UI combined with the same actual functional improvements under the hood would have been a dramatically superior design for the desktop and there is absolutely no reason that couldn't have been done.
How is upping the indexing to include file contents and redesigning the key start point of interaction around it a sensible approach on a system where you've implemented a performance killing indexing function that every informed user disables as part of tuning a system? A sensible approach is to figure out the things a power user turns off and disable them out of the box in the next release even if you leave the option for those few users who actually want it.
There is nothing about the design changes in windows 8 and 10 that indicates they are for the benefit of users rather than for the benefit of Microsoft. There isn't even some kind of reasonable blend of the two concerns, it is purely an effort of Microsoft wanting access to the data of millions of users and trying different approaches until it finds something that sticks.
Yes, you can download a third party app and restore the start menu to something functional and disable most of telemetry and most of these annoying "improvements" and then firewall off the rest. Not "if you want to", this isn't some preference, it is people who are ignorant and people who are not. Why the hell is this crap there in the first place? Nothing Microsoft has done to the start menu has been an improvement (other than a slick theme) in 10 years I doubt it is happening now.
7 already had a search field, not that you need one with a decently organized start menu. The first thing they did wrong was make the start menu dynamic. A consistent start menu is more functional than one which mostly contains random entries. They systematically removed useful items like rapid access to the control panel and "my computer" or "this pc", which in turn was your rapid access to system properties. Oh and how about "Run."
Yes there are ways around it. If you know the shortcut to open run it isn't a big deal, if you've memorized the commands to type in order to open the various control panels, etc. But a user didn't used to NEED to learn these things. You could get to everything you needed to figure out and understand the machine right from the start menu... especially useful if you are an advanced cross platform user who looks to be able to use that knowledge and a bit of probing to find their way around a platform and not memorized shortcuts and sequences because there is no way you'd memorize them on every platform.
Aside from that, it is just poor UI design practice. They aren't adding function, they are redesigning the UI just for the sake of doing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there a sad but real moderation?
He used su to assume other users logins, he didn't need borrowed credentials.
It's about damn time.
You are vulnerable to inside threats. In a small org it may not be a factor but when you get to enterprise environments you have segregated permissions. I think Edward Snowden is a hero but that aside, he is a poster child of why you are supposed to have everyone locked down into just the access they need.
You are stating an opinion not submitting to a peer review journal, police report, or even a paper for a grade. You might be more credible with citations provided but not having them doesn't make you a troll. You can be correct without citations, you can be incorrect with citations, and there are no shortage of opinions which can not be decisively ever be determined are correct or not.
People don't need to provide citations every time they give their 2 cents and what the hell do citations have to do with trolling anyway? I've seen trolls bust out citations many times when stirring up their shit.
"how would concealing its use from your partner empower you"
In the same way being able to take the pill while claiming to try to get pregnant empowers women. Even more so, it would allow you to let them feel secure thinking they are holding the reigns. This keeps a partner treating you the way they treat you while trying to trap you for as long as possible before they give up and move on. That isn't a shit move, it's just turnabout since it only matters if they are trying to trap you in the first place. Unfortunately, kids aren't the only way they try to trap you. As the woman progressively feels more secure in the relationship they dial all the good stuff down.
"How is it worse than the current situation?"
It isn't worse than the current situation. But the current situation is the current situation primarily for the same reason I'm mentioning. A male pill has been possible just as long as a female pill, women have used their highly vocal political majority to prevent one with the argument that men would "take advantage of women."
A little bit of testosterone would likely only increase her drive. Nothing terrible there.
I doubt it, the application method is about making sure men aren't actually empowered to control their own reproductive destiny. Rubbing it on your penis would carry the same problem, it could be tasted or otherwise detected.
This isn't a troll, just a legitimate comment subjected to bad moderator who disagrees.
"If I wanted offspring with my genes I could freeze some sperm before."
Those kind of things are very expensive and have very poor probabilities of success alongside high risk of multiples if they do succeed.
Probably the biggest reason is to empower men to control their own reproductive destiny without requiring us to have sex with a condom instead of a partner. If you are not a heterosexual male then you don't know what it is like dealing with some of the females in our society. They will tell you they are taking the pill and then skip it, pretending they got pregnant anyway and they will poke holes in condoms. Hell, a baby crazed female will simply apply inappropriate pressure on a guy who doesn't want kids and essentially force him. For the past 50 years our society has been entirely about empowering women and pretending there is no limit to how much you can tip the scales in that direction while still pretending men are the evil and powerful oppressors.
This gel is just another example. You'll note the application method requires a partner... so you are still subject to your partner knowing you are using it and actually applying the right thing.
"Despite an abundance of meat-free products already on the market that taste similar to animal meats"
ROFL
Good luck naming one. Maybe after so long without tasting a juicy steak or burger you forget what one tastes like... and I do mean entirely forget.
No, this is a common misunderstanding combined with a bit of an urban legend. There is no actual obligation to accept the currency accept by the Federal reserve which issued the promissory notes. There is plenty of precedent for others to refuse, stores will no longer accept a bag full of pennies, no shortage of gambling establishments will only accept their own tokens, coupons, and chips. The USPS will only accept their stamps. In this case, US dollars are being accepted, they just aren't accepting cash. This is no different than a gas station that won't take hundreds.
No, the draft is a bad use of law. There is no ethical use of a law forcing people to participate in murder or risk their lives for a cause they don't believe in.
"because they feel more important then their fellow human beings"
Everyone should be more important than their fellow human beings... to themselves. The false rationale is when every self-interest is treated as if it has equal value. Some things cost you very little and would mean the world to someone else. Other times a sacrifice is something you can bear and it is an investment in goodwill or supports a cause or ideal that has itself grown to a greater importance to you than the sacrifice, since it is still pursuing what you want that is still self-interest.
The best use of law is to protect your ability to make those choices and decide what acting civilized means for yourself. The next best use is ensuring those who have drive and merit succeed in proportion while those who lack those things are relatively less successful. This means encouraging automated coffee kiosks for artisian coffee that a hard working middle class person could open. This means encouraging the kind of climate where that homeless man who can't afford the coffee can show the slightest bit of drive and instead press the apply button and get a job restocking the machine.
No other person is better than you. There is no reason you should be putting others on a pedestal taller than your own. There are situations where I will put others ahead of myself but not when all else is equal, when all else is equal the deciding vote should be for yourself. No matter what other teams you are on, everyone should be on team self! That is just survival instinct and self-worth 101.
And for the record, the slick suit wearing scumbag middle-man peddling the franchises and taking a profit that means they are more expensive and there are less of them and the homeless guy who can't be bothered to apply... I can't see giving either much consideration short of "being human" and the very simple reason that matters is all of us are human. The higher we make the point that is the lowest a human can fall, the higher that point is if unforeseeable circumstances strike and we or those we care about fall. Personally, I'd hope that one day we set that bar somewhere in the crappy one bedroom neighborhood rather than sleeping in your own piss and vomit by an illegal burn barrel but we need to remember that aside from the mentally ill, almost all of those people could have some kind of shitty part time job if those choose to do that instead.
None of this means a whole lot in the many places around the world where they've started actually using bitcoin as a currency, you know, for real. And that userbase is growing. What you are seeing here is nothing more than growing pains induced by speculators with deep pockets.
Just like an open source project, bitcoin won't go anywhere. The ACTUAL core base will continue using it, once those speculators have bailed stability will return and when bitcoin is still around and has maintained stability for a few years a small amount of speculation will return and it will grow steadily for a few more. Then once again there will be an investment bubble but one that will be a little less extreme. Rinse and repeat, with everything growing more stable and consistent with each round.
I've heard of all sorts of bad laws.
The wants of the homeless do not outweigh the wants of these people. There is no justifiable reason why one should cater to the other.
Race is an arbitrary indicator of nothing meaningful. The only reason how something impacts one racial group should be examined is if it is the result of some deliberate action for precisely the reason that race is not a meaningful indicator or basis for action! Incidental or coincidental impact some significant quantity of people who self identify as one race or another or share some random physical trait isn't a valid reason to do anything in its own right.
Or to push a political agenda and force people to act in a manner there isn't any sane reason they should. We have laws to keep someone from something underhanded, dishonest, keep a level playing field, etc. The law doesn't exist to force people to sacrifice themselves for others as if they should value those others more highly than themselves!
This entire concept is valuing a group that is pitiable over a group that is actually productive and contributing to society, not because there is any actual need but just for the sake of doing it.
The wants of the homeless buying $5 coffee at Starbucks do not outweigh the wants of a small business owner putting his or life savings into building a drive through self serve coffee kiosk. Just because we need to recognize the poor man as human and having rights doesn't mean those rights outweigh someone elses. It certainly doesn't mean we should support measures that will result in more people who are poor and homeless. What the hell kind of thinking is that?
This guys concept of racism is worse. Racism is an attitude, it is a feeling. The entire reason it is wrong is that race is artificial concept and not a valid way to group people in the first place. There is absolutely no reason anything should be done or not done because of how it INCIDENTALLY impacts some quantity of people who happen to fall in a completely arbitrary and meaningless category by accident of birth.
It sounds like neither of you understands what that means. In one sense it refers to the fact that fed notes are considered "legal money" and can legally be used in place of the gold and silver the constitution requires but the courts have interpreted it as not requiring.
The notes are legal tender for debt because US currency is based on debt, all federal reserve notes represent debt and are promissory notes. Essentially, they are IOU's the federal reserve issues at its discretion. Each dollar note represent a "dollar" of debt. Although the President nominates the chairperson, the Fed is a private bank and as Donald Trump recently discovered to his dismay, they do what they want and make a profit to a handful of private interests.
A token nod to the actual law is that the treasury prints the bills but the Fed buys them at printing cost and the Fed issues digital currency at will.
Because they've never been in your shoes? Hold on, remind me, when were you in their shoes? And if you one of the people who has enjoyed the actual privilege of economic advantage you don't count.
There isn't a woman or minority male in this country who understands what it is like to not deal with real and imagined "notice' and judgement but actual systemic policies of discrimination, as a white male you have a higher bar for academic requirements (or your school does, to get funding), you are a disadvantage for scholarships and funding and also need to have higher academic achievement to get into the same schools because minorities and women are given preference, you have the same problem when it comes to employment. Oh and any problem you have socially acceptable to laugh off as "privilege."
When you go to the bathroom are you thinking about others? How about when you make yourself a bowl of soup? Are you thinking of others when you deposit your paycheck? And no, not your family/household, that is just a larger group of self because it is all one closely dependent team.
Is there some particular reason these guys should be "thinking of others" in their moves while they try to eek out a living? It isn't like they are closing the doors of cash businesses. Those others like you and those you are talking about obviously aren't thinking about the small business attempts that will be bankrupt and abject failures because of something like this. No doubt you see some rich guy in a slick suit working from a skyrise in your head, in reality there might be some of those overseeing franchising or something but the people who are hurt are John, Jose, Jamel, Sandy, and Sarah who saved up to get enough money just to turn around and borrow the rest to start that franchise. Now they'll lose their life savings or simply not have this lower startup cost opportunity and never break out of the hamster wheel, the rich guy in a slick suit will just do something else. This is especially damaging for John since he already had to work the hardest and save the most because everyone else on the list gets waived requirements and preference for SBA loans while John who grew up on food stamps is 'privileged' even though he systematically has to outperform everyone else to get the same opportunities.
We shouldn't be judgmental of their spending habits but we should dictate to the owners of the establishments without regard for their "reasons?"
There are no shortage of options if you have cash, particularly options which are viable for people with low income.
There are rules about employment discrimination and even those are morally questionable when it comes to privately held and small businesses. Really, some measure of that is probably fair with the liability immunity that comes with incorporating but since that is basically mandatory in today's legal climate even that argument is weak. A corporation can be two or three people with a convenience store and with preference for minorities and women for SBA loans there is no particular reason these type of establishments shouldn't be able to serve who they want and hire who they want or not hire who they don't want. People have a right to be morons, bigots, or just pick the qualified worker they'd prefer to have around regardless of reason. This shouldn't be an issue because the barrier to start one up with a different policy is ridiculously low.
For mass scale employers of big publicly traded companies it's a different game altogether on hiring but they are still in business to make a profit and it is one thing to require a neutral or less profitable path, in today's society it may well cost some businesses more to accept cash than they take in. Sorry Tony, you're just going to have to start laundering your walking money as well.
Riiiiigggghhhtttt.... first of all, even if that were true, the information would be drowned in the mass of uninformed and uneducated actions of most users who have no idea what they are doing. That is a rapid race to the bottom. If those users were magically gifted with understanding they would use different features and use the system in different ways, the ideal should be to strip out the uninformed usage and bring the system closer and closer to a power user configuration out of the box. Then the system is configured as a power user would configure it out of the box and the more powerful tools become the things all users learn in the first place.
Lets be honest, windows has gotten so bloated and terrible that even Microsoft avoids using it where they can. Instead of fixing it they just figure they'll monetize the suckers as much as they can as long as they can with the assumption that everything is just going to be a dumb browser host at some point. Then we'll all basically be terminal users using mainframes... err cloud services and have come full circle but with much more bloated and inefficient protocols.
"Everytime an OS comes out, the haters start claiming crap and usually it's either BS or self inflicted. And if (big IF) it has happened to you then try updating your drivers. I have more than 10 machines running win10 plus one running insider. No ads ever. The main issue I've run into a couple drivers causing issues and that's the Manufacturer's fault, not Microsoft's. I also had to modify the bios on my acer e 15 to turn AMD-V on, again not Microsoft's fault. You can easy remove apps using powershell and its easy to set it up for friends to use. I dont have mail, edge and other crap apps installed. You can easy disable Cortana and most of the telemetry."
First of all not being able to disable telemetry entirely means you all your windows 10 systems are broken but telemetry shouldn't exist in the first place. For the rest, you do realize we aren't a bunch of old men who can't figure it out or luddites. You aren't a luddite just because you oppose some "new" technology, you SHOULD oppose "new technology" that doesn't bring benefits and change for its own sake.
Your argument basically boils down to "I managed to make the systems all function as designed." While I do realize Microsoft has historically set the bar so low that the system actually functioning is impressive for them, it isn't impressive in general. We are complaining about the design itself, the fact the horrible design functions as designed isn't the point, it is a terrible design to interact with. An XP pro or even win 7 UI combined with the same actual functional improvements under the hood would have been a dramatically superior design for the desktop and there is absolutely no reason that couldn't have been done.
How is upping the indexing to include file contents and redesigning the key start point of interaction around it a sensible approach on a system where you've implemented a performance killing indexing function that every informed user disables as part of tuning a system? A sensible approach is to figure out the things a power user turns off and disable them out of the box in the next release even if you leave the option for those few users who actually want it.
There is nothing about the design changes in windows 8 and 10 that indicates they are for the benefit of users rather than for the benefit of Microsoft. There isn't even some kind of reasonable blend of the two concerns, it is purely an effort of Microsoft wanting access to the data of millions of users and trying different approaches until it finds something that sticks.
Yes, you can download a third party app and restore the start menu to something functional and disable most of telemetry and most of these annoying "improvements" and then firewall off the rest. Not "if you want to", this isn't some preference, it is people who are ignorant and people who are not. Why the hell is this crap there in the first place? Nothing Microsoft has done to the start menu has been an improvement (other than a slick theme) in 10 years I doubt it is happening now.
7 already had a search field, not that you need one with a decently organized start menu. The first thing they did wrong was make the start menu dynamic. A consistent start menu is more functional than one which mostly contains random entries. They systematically removed useful items like rapid access to the control panel and "my computer" or "this pc", which in turn was your rapid access to system properties. Oh and how about "Run."
Yes there are ways around it. If you know the shortcut to open run it isn't a big deal, if you've memorized the commands to type in order to open the various control panels, etc. But a user didn't used to NEED to learn these things. You could get to everything you needed to figure out and understand the machine right from the start menu... especially useful if you are an advanced cross platform user who looks to be able to use that knowledge and a bit of probing to find their way around a platform and not memorized shortcuts and sequences because there is no way you'd memorize them on every platform.
Aside from that, it is just poor UI design practice. They aren't adding function, they are redesigning the UI just for the sake of doing it.
The start menu has gotten worse and worse with each release and peaked somewhere around XP pro. 7 was the last functional one.