Considering this is after Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), it will be interesting to see if this holds up to judicial scrutiny.

The FCC's power just got substantially nerfed, and "we've decided to slow lane all foreign-made routers" feels like that may have been beaten on the old, higher, standard. Let alone the new one that gives the FCC almost no power.

They're saying all the right things here.

Fixing long-standing complaints, removing Copilot from obnoxious places, improvements to Windows Update and Windows Explorer stability/microstutter/lag, etc.

I congratulate them on seeing sense, and I congratulate Apple on another victory with the Neo. Kind of frustrating that's what it took for Microsoft to finally listen to their userbase.

I think the point you're making is fully correct, so consider this a devil's advocate argument...

People claim, you can use Claw-agents more safely while getting some of the benefits, by essentially proxying your services. For example on Gmail people are creating a new Google accounts, forwarding email via rule, and adding access to their calendar via Google's Family Sharing. This allows the Claw agent to read email, access the calendar, but even if you ask it to send an email it can only send as the proxy account, and it can only create calendar appointments then add you as an attendee rather than destroy/altering appointments you've made.

Is the juice worth the squeeze after all that? That's where I struggle. I think insecure/dangerous Claw-agents could be useful but cannot be made safe (for the logical fallacy you pointed out), and secure Claw-agents are only barely useful. Which feels like the whole idea gets squished.