Autumn.

Get it, americans

That’s what I feared and I removed my entire content from google photo 6 years ago. Also my spouse’s.

I have seen worse. Normie’s around me use their phone to capture photo of the laptop screen and send the low pixel photo with less than half part in it including the actual document.

Wait. Winter is coming

Don’t underestimate the power of Normies. They don’t know what a ransom is, nor the value of their own data. Any email requesting for ransom will go unnoticed or marked spam, and users will live in their normie nirvana, while their digital self will lie floating around internet, which they wont give a damn. After all, all their Facebook photos and tiktok videos are already out.

Alternative you may consider is the brave search. Supports many bangs (?all of what ddg supports). It is independent of other search engines as well. But its picture search is poor.

I also see delayed response in displaying shutdown options.

They will most likely continue to use win 10 oblivious of its EOL. I have seen many using windows 7 even now. Some tech-aware will install win11 in the same machine by registry hack or sth. Very, very few will consider the possibility of alternatives.

Understood. Serving emotional content is the social media stunt to grab attention. News is not The intention. And without enough context, it increases polarity in our society. Tiktok is a master of this tactic.

Some things last over my lifetime, and that’s “lasts” enough.

Far better. Let the crowd shout. Win 8.1 was the last version enjoyable.

Shows how much been biased countrywise the posts are. And internet in general.

You don’t know bang! ? Oh, google doesn’t have the feature.

Spot on mate! Love you. Made my day

Yes. Thanks. Sorry.

Oh I am sorry. I did not see the x sign between 3 and 7. Lol.

Wrong. Two hints:

7x7=9 at the end, not 7.

30x30=900, already more than 777.

In scenario 1, legit or not, you said the chance is still 50-50. In other scenarios also you shouldn’t change or it wouldn’t matter. That’s what I say, just in the opposite direction. But the problem of probability depends on the wordings and phrases, which means I may not have understood the ques well.

Another angle: You explained the Monty Hall problem at the end that the probability changes because in second choice we have more information. So you are implying that the initial 1/3 probability of the now-open door adds to the door we did not choose - making the switch advisable. Here I also say the probability does change from initial 1/3, but to 1/2-1/2 for each remaining doors; why should the probability be poured to the unselected single door?

Spot on.

Or there are 2 possibilities and then you introduce a 3rd door that is never correct?

Yes that one. Similar to the one you did with 100 doors, just in opposite direction.