Go back 40/50 years, and most people then thought of directories as an index (see telephone directory), and folders were thing that contained/were files within a filing cabinet.
I still have a hard time calling them folders, it gives me a little eye twitch to say "folder", though I know the icon is a folder, and it makes it easier for the average person to grok.
I have a copy. So, so, so, so awful
I bet it's the same code that does the same sync today
I'd put even money that Offline Files is the same code just with a different UI.
Same way you do anywhere else - use them properly (seriously not being snarky, there's really only one area where there's a difference, which I discuss below). Keep in mind most bike clutches are wet, so have better cooling capability than cars (though BMW likes a dry clutch).
Hills aren't really any different, and with modern vehicles brakes don't fade like they used to (especially on bikes).
Though, since a bike does (almost always) have a manual gearbox, let engine braking handle any long downhills where you need to keep speed in check, and use brakes in short, firm decelerations.
For example, there's a long downhill on I70 in Colorado, so long it has a sign saying "Truckers You Are Not Down Yet - 7 More Miles of Downhill". On such a long downhill, downshift just enough that engine braking keeps you at your target speed (say 65 mph on that hill). Then if you do start running fast, or getting too close, use the brakes firmly, not lightly, to quickly bring your speed down.
This works best because it heats the brakes intensely for a few seconds, but then gives them a relatively long time to cool off afterwards.
If you were to just lightly hold the brakes to slowly slow down, the discs would heat just as much (if not more), but you'd have less time between braking cycles, leaving less time for them to cool.
I've experienced brake fade on such downhills, it's no fun (in a truck). Passenger vehicles don't often have as advanced materials in brakes as bikes do, and this particular one had relatively cheap aftermarket pads, and I had been used to it with factory pads. Big difference.
I've watched trucks going down such hills with their brake discs glowing hot enough to see in daylight - they had to be riding the brakes a long time for that.
Essentially, any brake system could emergency stop a vehicle at speed on such a downhill one time, so best to keep them cool for as long as possible by using engine braking.
All that said, on my 35-year-old, 700lb "sport" bike, I've never experienced brake fade on downhills like that. The brakes are so oversized relative to the mass of the bike, it's just not a concern. But I still use engine braking - why take a chance.
It won't.
All the crap from MS only affects ignorant home users. (I say that with no criticism - home users often lack significant expertise in this stuff).
Corporate has an IT team dedicated to image building, based on requirements gathering, which is well documented and well tested before it's deployed to even a small test group (usually us fellow IT geeks get to be Guinea pigs first).
Once it's been certified, then they'll deploy to a second, larger group, test and verify.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Plus they'll probably start with new hires and anyone with a machine that is falling off lease/aging out. This gives them a little room, in that new hires don't have any local data (no one should have much in the first place), and people with aging machines can hold onto the old machine for a couple weeks as a fallback, just in case.
I've seen it several times, been part of deployment and upgrade teams.
Additionally, they deploy policies to redirect any MS network services to their own internally hosted services - windows is designed to do this, there are specific policies for everything, such us Windows Update services, even the MS App Store. Because no company wants machines pulling random crap from outside the company (they probably even block the access at the network level - I would).
No idea.
I've never cared about such things for home systems - I never use MS support, and I think updates are over emphasized for stability and security, as that ignores the other layers that are required.
If a system runs, does what I need it to do, I'm uninterested in making changes that run the risk of causing issues (for example, I have containers for things like Syncthing that don't get auto updates - I need to know that it works the same all the time, as it keeps mobile devices syncing their data to home, which gets backed up). I check updates 2x/year, and manually update if I feel it's useful (sometimes updates aren't available for all systems, which can break things).
All my systems are properly secured, behind multiple layers of security (physical firewall, isolated vlans, VPN, with encryption enabled wherever it's available, etc), I run in limited user accounts, my admin accounts aren't obvious, with proper complex passwords, everything is encrypted, properly replicated and backed up.
My next phase is adding 2FA even for my home servers.
Nice, thanks for the alternative!
I like the option for scripting it.
No shit.
We've been saying this from the start, and all we got was insults from the supposed green crowd.
In a word: Yes.
As in all the above to greater/lesser degrees.
While theoretically the president has authority to know about all of this, the reality is people/groups very likely obfuscate their behaviour/projects/agendas in myriad ways.
So fo any of us not closely connected to any particular story/allegation/project, the likelihood of learning anything with any veracity is highly unlikely.
I say this as someone with family in both military and aerospace who have varying clearances (fairly run-of-the-mill stuff, nothing significant), and I can tell when they avoid subjects which could expose they know something (again, nothing to do with UAP, just mundane tech, things like materials tech or current/past intel capabilities).
If they won't even talk about mundane stuff from multiple decades ago (I've looked at military records, which give hints to what they were involved with), I'm pretty sure anytime we hear supposed "secret" intel, it's likely to have been carefully orchestrated for a specific goal.
NT (and therefore all Windows versions today) always had multi-user security. It's essentially a ported version of DEC Alpha.
On install, the first user is admin, just like the first Linux account is root, or else you wouldn't be able configure the machine.
Windows architecture built on DOS (3.x, 95,etc) lacked any such security, and was developed as a single-user OS (goes back to DOS86).
Hahaha haha, right, right, hahahaha
That always bothered me, from the start.
"Apple is more intuitive" oh really?