My guess is they did testing but the build they tested was not the build released to customers. That could have been because of poor deployment and testing practices, or it could have been malicious.
Such software would be a juicy target for bad actors.
If an intern can release to prod without extensive testing there are bigger issues.
Given the scope of the potential impact, if anyone can release to prod and have that deploy to all customers without some form of a canary release strategy, then there are still issues.
The relative number here might be more useful as long as it's understood that Google already has significant emissions. It's also sufficient to convey that they're headed in the wrong direction relative to their goal of net zero. A number like 14.3 million tCO₂e isn't as clear IMO.
"Up to 20%" is meaningless for a headline and is pure click bait. It could be any number between 0% and 20%. Or put another way, any number from no time at all to a horrifying more than an entire day per week.
Why not just state the average from what is probably a statistically irrelevant study and move on?
I think the key point is ownership. If the house is owned by an equity firm, even if it's occupied it still counts as a house which could instead be owned by, well, homeowners.
As others have mentioned, a trusted 3rd party signs the correct key so your browser can check the key itself.
However, it should also be noted that your browser must have a list of trusted 3rd parties and their certificates used for signing in order to perform this check. It's entirely possible to modify this list yourself. Some examples include:
executing your own MITM style "*attack" in order to intercept and analyze local https traffic
corporate network inspection and monitoring, where a gateway does the above for all devices on the network which have a CA cert pre-installed through some policy
So while it's possible for trusted 3rd parties to issue valid certificates to bad actors, it's also possible to add anyone (you, your employer, or some bad actors) to the trusted parties list.
That may be, but I'm not sure that's a problem for a communication platform. I remember one time when they moved the share screen button around and some less tech savvy users thought the feature was removed!
Teams has something like chat threads too. E.g. you can reply to a message in a channel and it groups all replies, and you can also focus that thread if you want. But I agree it isn't hidden "off the main topic" quite like slack threads.
I can't say I've run into those issues with the new teams. Worst I've experienced is the app freezing during a call, which has happened twice in the last year or so.
The argument for AM appears to be: the vast majority of adults will receive an emergency broadcast through their cellphone, but what happens if some event has already occurred which disabled large portions of the cellular network (which itself is an obvious target to create havoc)?
I'm fine with using AM as a redundant system for alerts.
Maybe make it more useful though for people in the car? I don't need an AM button I'm never going to touch. Instead have it monitor whatever the emergency broadcast frequencies are automatically, and put something on screen when there is an alert. That would make it a useful "modern" feature as opposed to appearing as a legacy holdover.
It's incredibly hard to help people who actively vote against their own interests.