What you have heard about is a feature called “Recall”, which is something that has not actually rolled out and will only be coming to PCs with specific neural processing units. Other windows users will not be affected (although of course that will change over time as old devices are replaced with new).

Is it possible? Yes, of course it’s possible. You could say that about pretty much any operating system - including Linux distros - if the functionality turns out to be popular.

However, to be 100% clear, this is functionality that the user can disable (either entirely, or on an app-by-app basis). And data is never transacted to the cloud or with Microsoft. What’s on the device does not leave the device. It’s also really not in Microsoft’s own interest at all to try taking on that responsibility… How would they know if you paid for an app/game/song or not, even if they wanted to?

But back to your question: yes, of course it is possible. This type of technology has already been prototyped in different ways (e.g. Apple have done work about identifying CSAM on the iPhone, although not implemented).

Yes, Linux gives you a lot more control. If you were to make the switch, I would list a hundred other reasons that are far more compelling than this storm in a teacup.

That said, there’s absolutely no reason a Linux distro couldn’t also bring the same functionality, if there is consumer appetite for it.

If you are looking to truly make it “impossible”, you need to air-gap your machine and not connect to the internet anymore.

It stems from an old proverb: “there is naught so queer as folk”, essentially meaning “people are strange”. The meaning of “queer” has shifted and narrowed over time to refer to sexuality, but kept its ties to this idiom, resulting in the TV show “queer as folk” and the generic phrase “queer folk”.

There is nothing especially pretentious or mythical about the word. It may just be your own assumptions/interpretations of it. Far more people have an issue with the word “queer” than they do “folk”. If you don’t like it, don’t use it, but you should also aim to shake the stigma from it, as it’s not what 99.9% of people mean when they use it.

It would depend exactly how big/substantial this ‘gathering’ is, but I could imagine that “Grove”, “Stand” or “Thicket” might be appropriate.

They aren’t exclusive to your definition, but could be applicable.

What about a “social climber”? Someone whose friendships are based on calculations about who can help them succeed in other ways?

Oprah did a very controversial, very public show about mad cow disease, implying it was in America, and led to a big lawsuit.

There are multiple sources of info, but for some easy listening, checkout the podcast ‘Maintenance Phase’ which did a 2 part feature on it.

Is that actually what we’re seeing reflected in the graph? Mmm, I’m not convinced. But it’s definitely true that she did hurt the beef industry in America.

So, while this is a “general” question, it seems likely that most people will gravitate towards themes of porn and sexual violence when thinking about it. Let me discuss from that perspective.

To be clear, I am not an expert, but it is something I have thought a lot about in the context of my field in technology (noting how generative AI can be used to create very graphic images depicting non-consensual activities).

The short answer: we don’t concretely know for certain. There is an argument that giving people an “outlet” means they can satisfy an urge without endangering themselves in real life. There is also an argument that repeated exposure can dilute/dull the sense of social caution and normalise the fetishised behaviour.

I am very sympathetic to the former argument where it applies to acts between otherwise informed/consenting individuals. For example, a gay person in a foreign country with anti-gay laws; being able to explore their sexuality through the medium of ‘normal’ gay pornography seems entirely reasonable to me (but might seem disgusting by other cultural standards).

When it comes to non-consensual acts, I think there is a lot more room for speculation and concern. I would recommend reading this study as an example, which explored dangerous attitudes towards women that were shaped through pornography.

Some key takeaways:

1. It’s never as simple as saying “porn caused it”. There are a multitude of factors.
2. Regardless, there is a seemingly strong anecdotal connection between violent pornography and violent attitudes in real life.
3. It likely depends heavily on the individual and their own beliefs/perceptions/experiences before this development

And a final noteworthy line:

The view that pornography played a role in their clients’ harmful attitudes and/or behaviours was undisputed; what was harder for them to articulate was the strength of the contribution of pornography, given the complexities of the other contributing factors in their clients’ lives.

Maybe a “specious claim” or “folk wisdom” or “empty rhetoric”?

The word I would normally gravitate to is a “truism”, however that’s not really used to describe something that is necessarily false… just something that sounds insightful, but doesn’t have any meaningful depth (e.g. “every cloud has a silver lining”).