Survivorship bias i suspect, the company needs to fuck up big enough for it to be worth noting, survive that fuck-up and then admit enough wrongdoing (fiscally, if nothing else) to be able to be in the situation where a story like that would come out.
I think we'll hear more over time, but as a thing that happened in the past.
Some companies might not survive to rehire, some might only just survive and rehiring isn't on the cards.
Some might limp forwards and work through without rehires.
I'm a simple person, i see weak rhetoric built on shaky foundations of faulty premises....i downvote.
Possibly also get into an internet slap fight with a troll....you know....an honest days work.
Personally I see LLMs as a tool like any other. You can use it to mass produce low quality slop, just as you can use it to help you produce a higher quality output.
I agree with this in principle, but I'd argue that it's more like an industrial table saw than a hand saw.
Meaning the potential for damage is much greater with this particular tool (for various reasons) which means that it need proper training and experience, safeguards, maintenance and fail-safes to be used effectively (without doing yourself or others damage).
The potential damage of using this tool is a bit less immediate and obvious than an industrial table saw however, which means you should be extra careful.
Is down voting for reasons that aren't popularity or agreement related allowed?
I meant 'forced' as in ' forced by their capitalist greed and culture ' not like there's an actual threat to anything but the quarterly bonuses of the current golden parachute holder.
Eventually, perhaps they'll fuck up enough for it to be an existential threat to the company.
I'm the meantime they'll just continue pretending copilot is a serious contender outside of their walled garden and probably lay off a few thousand people they don't care about, to balance the numbers.
Edit : "a few days later" - https://lemmy.world/post/48874177
TL;DR;
Capitalists gonna capitalise,
Fiscal gain is always going to be the reason behind decisions, even if it doesn't seem like it on the face of it.
Especially microsoft, with it's history.
I'll preface this with, this is just my opinion etc...
I say must, should, has to, etc with the conviction of my opinion, not proof of objective fact.
i have some insight into the subject/industry but nothing i'd be willing to verify with anyone, so make of that what you will.
It's less a specific thing to point to and more of a general "profit driven company is going to make profit driven decisions", even if perceived altruism was deemed the best fiscal decision, the primary goal is still commercial viability.
A full extra year of security updates requires resources.
Unless they are doing something wildly outside the norms of software development, that means development, testing, deployment, hosting, tooling, marketing/PR, support and more.
There's both CapEx and OpEx costs to that kind of endeavour.
For a product of any size that's a non-zero resource cost, for a product the size of windows that's a big number, perhaps not in the grand scheme, but it's a non-trivial amount.
That is historically not the kind of thing that microsoft would do/has done just for the altruistic benefit of it's users.
Feel free to provide examples to the contrary, i'd be pleasantly surprised.
So assuming it's not altruism that drives this decision, the only other conclusion i could come up with was commercial viability/profit/money.
That might be a failure of imagination on my part.
The projected cost of not doing this must outweigh the projected benefit of going through with it.
Be that in goodwill, user/customer retention, PR, straight up sales or something else, there must be a benefit that outweighs the cost of just dropping support.
I could speculate on specifics but it'd mostly be rehashing the thousands of articles on poor decisions (and poor timing) around the whole win 11 rollout and windows in general.
i don't mean this from an old man shouts at cloud viewpoint, i don't particularly care for windows(or microsoft) but I'm not a rabid hater.
Microsoft has some good products that i use regularly, despite their constant and repeated attempts to enshittify all of the end user experiences they can in pursuit of fiscal gain.
That being said, the win 11 rollout has been a shambles on many fronts.
Microsoft is forced to provide another year of security updates because a series of historic and ongoing colossal fuckups have made it more commercially viable for them to do so than the alternative.
There is no "give" here, they are doing it for themselves, that the user potentially benefits is incidental.
The argument they were making is poor.
However, moral conviction has no bearing on objective correctness.
Edit: If it did, any voluntarily suicide bomber would be objectively correct.
I'd address the other point but It doesn't sound like you're open to viewpoints that are not your own.( and don't seem to understand what objective truth actually entails )
Edit Edit:
"Cowardly Downvotes Are Bad" is another example of something that is subjective.
I believe it to be true, but that belief doesn't change the the fact that that statement isn't objectively correct. ( as in, provably true for everyone regardless of their perspectives or beliefs )
It was originally a mandatory download masquerading as a plugin, you couldn't remove it.
You could turn it off, except there was a convenient "bug" that meant it took every opportunity to turn itself back on.
They eventually got sick of the complaints (or already had all the data they needed) and "fixed" the bug.
The fact that a bunch of businesses telling them that "an on by default AI plugin that can't be permanently disabled, catastrophically fails a bunch of mandatory data security guidelines" and that they would not renew, probably also helped jetbrains prioritise better.
Now it's just a default install on by default. That has it's own panel functioning as an ad ( until you turn it off )
Not sure if you can fully uninstall it or not.
All of this is in their forums and issues, feel free to confirm.
And I actually like their products, but that was a shitshow.
"Piranesi" or "There Is No Antimemetics Division"
Though the later is more about exploration of hard to grasp cognitive concepts than a structure.