Do changing the laws to make it legal count? http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9070435/Controversial...

I believe that OSX is optimized for Intel's brand of x86 - might have been too much effort to switch vendors when it comes to future kernel support.

macOS does not seem like an OS that has been optimized much at all in regards to the CPU.

Also, Apple dragged macOS from PPC to x86; switching x86 implementations is no big deal for the rest of the world, it surely should not be a challenge for Apple.

Yeah. People have done AMD Hackintoshes. It's more likely that they have some agreement with Intel that prevents them from going AMD for the CPU.

Does .NET have a bad reputation for compatibility I don't know about? I thought the only breaking change was with generics in 4.0, still running programs originally compiled for 4.0 with 4.7 installed.

Probably would have been better if Tesla branded it "co-pilot". Autopilot while technically correct doesn't function the way people assume it does.

> In other words, no computers should be infected because Microsoft already dealt with the problem.

I don't know if this conclusion is entirely accurate, I believe a more correct conclusion would be that "no computers that are patched and supported should be at risk of infection from these specific exploits because Microsoft already dealt with the problem."

I'd assume most of these infected computers are unpatched, unless someone can replicate the malware on an up to date instance of Windows 7+.

This is probably also why Microsoft have gotten so aggressive with patching and updating for better or for worse. (along with the cost savings internally that come with supporting evergreen software)