Because in general, making things more difficult for an adverse party has great potential for also having side effects for proper users. And conversely, making things easier for proper users very often also makes it easier for adversaries.
You're right that it's not a strict 100% rule, but it's so common a pattern that keeping it in mind when making security decisions (to avoid fulfilling it or at least weigh risks) is a good practice.
Would make sense to have a rule excluding "no stupid questions" communities from the sources. Perhaps even all of the fediverse.
That's actually a brilliant question, it could be for dumb things the poster has been asked or seen asked.
"PricewaterhouseCoopers, also known as PwC, is a multinational professional services network based in London, England."
Not mentioned in the article, had to look it up.
Is that why they are an ex?
Given the title and being a plastic bottle, I was expecting:
Nope, it's explicitly not because of the app version. (Although the feature would have a minimum version.) Google likes to lock updates behind a server-side check so they can gradually enable rollouts and see if it starts bricking phones or whatever (then completely ignore the issue for months if it does)
Was it at the locks?
Yeah, if we were in the singularity, we'd know it - there would be absolutely no question because of the way it's defined: "... singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue"
So as long as people are still working at a company to make money to buy food, etc. then it's not the singularity.
I've heard of this kind of thing before, but always just thought it was silly - sure if you sample random observations over the lifetime of a thing, the median will be right in the middle, but that's a tautology, it's by definition. And it doesn't have any predictive power because the observations at the beginning or end have an equal probability to the ones in the middle, there's no way for any of them to know where they were until after the fact.
Using this method, this company that went under in 2006 would have guessed in the year 2000 that they would last another 1400 years. While Nintendo in 1900 would have guessed only another 11 years.
How old is that actor now? Amazing that he'd still be in shape to play. Let's see, the first movie was like 1997, so 29 human years...Would have been at least a year old at the time (probably more)... 210?!
I'd think that would be Spanish. It's not type le