Personally, I am not an accountant and I like having my keyboard centered on my laptop, not offset to make room for a num pad.

If having Linux installed costs exactly as much as no os option, I can see a potential customer choosing Linux if only to play with it before wiping the HD/SSD and installing Windows with your own key.

Why not?

Let's see how these non-US OS teams deal with the surge in User Age Reporting requirements for OSes.

I suspect they'll snap to attention to their European leaders just as fast as you imagine US companies comply with U.S. leaders requirements.

Framework charges $200 for bundling Windows 11 Pro, seems like a lot for something you could get with a Windows 7 COA on a computer you find in a dumpster...

If you are smart enough to configure your own laptop you are likely smart enough to avoid paying retail for a windows license.

The Microsoft Tax was always a canard - OEM paid a trivial amount per system shipped, then third-parties paid the OEM to bundle their 'bloatware' and those bloatware fees almost always offset the MS license key cost (for Hone versions). On top of that, MS offered advertising/marketing money to advertise computer models that ONLY shipped with Windows installed and the advertising included Windows logo...

People acted like the OEM paid the $139 retail price for windows, so they wanted it removed.

You're wrong, period.

Let me see if I've got this right - Trump won by several million votes in the popular election, and you claim it was only possible due to "voter suppression"? So your argument is that several million voters (the number needed to beat Trump) were suppressed, yet in the follow-up after the 2024 election not one court case, not one state or federal investigation has proven any voter supression at any scale,let alone large enough to suppress several million voters... please explain how that is.

exactly

No, it wouldn't.

A nuclear Iran with cruise missles that can target locations 2,500 KM away is not a "stabilizing" force in the region.

Over-production causes prices to drop below the cost of producing the item, putting farmers into bankruptcy.

We decided it was important to keep farmers growing food.

A previous administration had a program that paid inner-city minorities that merely "claimed" they thought about becoming a farmer, but decided not to because of real or imagined racism... that was a pretty dubious program. "Uh, yeah, I was high yesterday and thought about becoming a farmer, but then I sobered up and remembered I'm (a minority) and gave up that dream. Compensate me for being a victim of racism!"

What tax dollars? The administration is simply returning previously-paid lease payments to these companies companies that paid them.

Reimbursing the two companies fees they previously paid isn't spending one thin dime of taxpayer money.

Returning their off shore wind farms produce lease payments doesn't involve one penny of taxpayer money - it's returning their deposit money the two companies paid the government - that's the meaning of the word 'reimburse" in the very first sentence of TFS.

These two companies paid nearly $900M to get land leases for their projects. These two companies federal gov't is "reimbursing" them the lease payments they made to the government.

Now, tell me about any subsidies, loan guarantees, tax breaks, etc these projects were offered by the last administration... I suspect there were some very generous terms offered (think Solyndra, A123 battery company, etc)

Please, explain how covering land with solar panels improves the yield of crops...

Seems to me that could only benefit crops that don't need direct sunlight and where the equipment to harvest the crops can operate underneath the solar panels, but I'm sure you don't mean that, so please, explain.

Reimbursing the companies the exact amount they paid for the leases is not "paying them off".

I'd like to hear more about the subsidies, tax breaks, and other promises the federal government (under the previous administration) made to these companies.

It's funny how folks claim that wind/solar are so cheap but as soon as the gov't pulls loan guarantees, subsidies, tax breaks and/or purchase requirements (utilities have to buy all their output no matter if needed or not) these "cheaper energy projects" collapse.

Aside from solar farms built to power crypto data centers exclusively, please tell me about all the large-scale (heck, or small-scale) solar or wind farms built with NO subsidies of any kind.

We're refunding people money they paid to get the leases to build the wind farms produce- we are returning their deposit on the land, so to speak.

And no, we are not "paying people NOT to generate energy" - we're returning their money and encouraging them to invest in other projects to generate energy.

Reimburse...

"Oil and gas projects" either produce energy or are energy production-adjacent (pipeline, refinery, and so on)