That's true and if Microsoft decrees "Windows is included at no charge with a Microsoft 365 license", I would think that's many times more palatable.

You're right that Microsoft's main source of income is enterprise customers. But at the same time, I strongly believe that IT departments worldwide would start to seriously consider what tasks they really need Windows or Microsoft Office for and start considering giving as many employees as possible Macs or Chromebooks or even Linux systems. An additional $5 a month multiplied by a thousand systems is $60,000 p.a. I do see IT directors trying to minimise the number of Windows licenses wherever possible in that case. Does the receptionist really need Windows when the scheduling software is cloud-based? Can we replace it with a Chromebook? Is it finally worth it to give the designers the Macs they've been clamouring for? And the big one—do we really need Active Directory specifically now that everyone's got a Mac or a Chromebook? These are questions that have to be answered by IT departments worldwide and every time they're answered in the affirmative, it costs Microsoft another customer. Not everyone will switch, but the impact will still be non-negligible, and people will also think twice before getting Microsoft systems in the future.

I think you're right. Microsoft isn't stupid enough to try this.

You have to understand that the bulk of computer buyers aren't really that computer literate. As someone who worked 4 years in IT, I'll tell you that the average computer user doesn't even know how to install a graphics card driver, let alone do any other stuff. If given the choice between even $5 a month or learning to use a Mac or a Chromebook, people will learn to use a Mac or a Chromebook. Linux isn't even a consideration.

The vast majority of people are perfectly happy with Google Docs/Slides/Sheets for daily personal use. If the choice comes down to using the Google office suite or paying a subscription, people tend to avoid paying. I know ZERO people who subscribe to Office 365 for personal use (besides those tricked into it). They either pay for the one-off license, pirate if they know how, use copies paid for by their work, or use alternatives.

People don't care that ChromeOS and MacOS are locked down. They don't do anything that requires the "unlocked" operating system and you can bet your ass that if Microsoft starts charging a subscription fee, Apple and Google's marketing teams will jump so hard on that it'll crack the pavement.

If Windows 12 becomes subscription-based, Google and Apple will be laughing all the way to the bank.

Well, it is technically "piracy" but it's amateur piracy. No need to get fancy with torrents and VPNs or whatnot. Just download the software and... not pay.

"Why is it running Windows 95? Don't they know Windows XP is a thing?"

Don't forget that after the tourists leave, the supply mechanics of Voodoo doughnuts kick back in, resulting in copious amounts of doughnuts circulating around the city. This causes a temporary obesity problem but everyone works it off in the spring. I read a study in Nature talking about the ecological effects of this phenomenon but I didn't really understand it.

I'll add your snap if you can recite the full rules of Magic the Gathering

There are 48 list seats, plus at most a few more overhang seats, and people can decline seats, so I'm guessing it's to prevent parties from putting everyone and their mum on the list since it's of very little practical use after some point.

It doesn't hurt and it essentially becomes an honour roll for party members I suppose. Tow the party line and make the list, I guess.

Was, but no longer is. It is officially discontinued, making the ₹500 note the largest for now. I would expect the Government to quickly launch a new large-denomination note. India is still a largely cash society and the largest note being worth 6 USD is surely going to be inconvenient for everyday citizens.

The Government demonetised ₹1000 and ₹2000 banknotes a few years back as part of a campaign against "black money". The Government's thinking was that criminal organisations hoarded large amounts of cash in these large-denomination notes, and by forcing everyone to deposit the notes immediately into the bank, it would bring light to the flow of money.

It was not particularly successful and mostly all it did was lead to a week of chaos and long queues outside banks.

Computers will never consistently beat humans and humans will never consistently beat computers as snakes and ladders.

Or rock-paper-scissors, for that matter.

After hearing you explain it, I think you have me convinced that taxing only the land value is a fairer system and would encourage active development. My only concern is this:

• the land value of a plot of land in East Portland on which a single-family house sits may be worth $50,000
• a five-storey block of flats in, say, Downtown or even nearby like the Pearl District, Llyod, or whatever might have a land value of, for example, $100,000 (all numbers made up for illustrative purposes)
• the land on which the US Bank building may, for example, be worth $300,000
• the land on which Zenger Farms, a 10 ha. urban farm, sits may be worth $500,000 or more, because it's so big

Suppose the tax is 10% of the assessed land value. This means the owners of the East Portland house, the five-storey block of flats, the US Bank building, and Zenger Farms, would be assessed $5,000, $10,000, $30,000, and $50,000 respectively in tax. Now, I think I needn't point out that this doesn't seem fair. All of the plots of land are being used for "adequate" purposes, and yet it seems some of them are punished for that land use decision that in all isn't that bad. The urban farm is not exactly wasting land; it's providing valuable fresh produce to the city.

What I think would be better is a tiered system by categorising the traditional property tax bracket by land use:

• 0.1% for agricultural
• 0.5% or lower for medium or high-density buildings, such as skyscrapers, duplexes/triplexs/n-plexes, and mixed use zoning
• 1% for low-density commercial or single-family housing
• 5% for car parking
• 10% for vacant buildings
• 30% for empty lots

The numbers are arbitrary and illustrative only, but I think this allows for a more nuanced approach that allows for a finer-grained policy to be applied to discourage unwanted development

I cannot comment on how vigorously the law is enforced in other countries because I am not familiar with the legal environment. In the United States, downloading pirated content will eventually get legal notices sent to your internet service provider, who will threaten to (and legally is required to) disconnect you for repeated piracy. Using copyrighted pictures off the Internet will result in legal threats sent to you as well demanding settlements of hundreds of US dollars per picture, and they will follow through with a lawsuit if you don't pay. Although I have no specific examples of what Microsoft has done, Autodesk and Adobe have sued people who used pirated copies of their software for millions of dollars. People who operate websites offering pirated content have been prosecuted and sent to prison.

Maybe you as an individual can get away with it in your country, but don't assume it is the case all over the world.

It's not that shallow. You are trying to use an anecdote, and not even a concrete anecdote, to argue a matter of statistics. The anecdote isn't even illustrative of any point. It is utterly disconnected from any statistical argument. It is not logically sound and you should know that. We're talking about how many people pirate things, not whether any given person pirates something. What you have argued in your comment is, "there exists a set of circumstances where a person could reasonably be driven to commit piracy". That is neither persuasive to your thesis nor particularly enlightening.

I really wish rhetoric was taught as a standard subject in grade school. It must not be where you're from.

You really need to learn to read properly. What I'm saying is that being poor on its own does not incline people to commit crime. You read it as "People commit piracy if and only if they are poor", which is the only statement under which your reply and its implications would be logically sound.

Is being poor correlated with piracy? Yes. But I argue the much bigger factors are the lack of availability of legitimate methods of acquiring software in India as well as the difficulty of acquiring such legitimate copies, even when they are available. There are also cultural differences that make piracy more acceptable in India than in other places, such as Europe or North America.

Think of it like this: a hypothetical 13-year-old child in the United States who wants a video game and sees it on Steam for 60 USD may consider piracy, but is much more likely to save up for it and buy it legitimately when they get a Steam gift card for their birthday or ask their parents for it for Christmas. Their parents can easily go to Walmart or Amazon and buy a copy. Meanwhile, a child in India who sees the same game for sale for the equivalent of 5,000 INR will know that is firstly a ludicrous amount to save for, and secondly, may not be available in their region, and thirdly, lacks the ability to simply ask for it for their birthday or something. Gift cards don't seem to be too common in India. A person living in India is also less likely to have access to banking infrastructure that allows for easy electronic payment. Even things bought on Amazon have "cash upon delivery" available as a payment method. That is how undeveloped India's payment infrastructure is. Meanwhile in the USA, every teenager has their own bank account and debit card. As a result, the Indian teenager is more likely to pirate. But it is not solely because they are poorer.

Well, your thought is wrong. Copyright infringement is an offence in India. It's also an offence in the United States, where I live. It is also an offence in Indonesia (seeing you're using an Indonesian instance), punishable by three years imprisonment and a 500 million rupiah fine. But maybe it's not enforced well there so you didn't know about it

It's of questionable legality. It's not illegal as in "piracy", but the seller, or whoever obtained that key from Microsoft, is violating their agreement with Microsoft by reselling the keys.