No. Microsoft is not liable, at least when it applies to HIPAA.
The HIPAA Rules apply to covered entities and business associates.
Individuals, organizations, and agencies that meet the definition of a covered entity under HIPAA must comply with the Rules' requirements to protect the privacy and security of health information and must provide individuals with certain rights with respect to their health information. If a covered entity engages a business associate to help it carry out its health care activities and functions, the covered entity must have a written business associate contract or other arrangement with the business associate that establishes specifically what the business associate has been engaged to do and requires the business associate to comply with the Rules’ requirements to protect the privacy and security of protected health information. In addition to these contractual obligations, business associates are directly liable for compliance with certain provisions of the HIPAA Rules.
If an entity does not meet the definition of a covered entity or business associate, it does not have to comply with the HIPAA Rules. See definitions of “business associate” and “covered entity” at 45 CFR 160.103.
HIPAA doesn't even require encryption. It's considered "addressable". They just require access be "closed". You can be HIPAA compliant with just Windows login, event viewer, and notepad.
(Also HIPAA applies to healthcare providers. Adobe doesn't need to follow HIPAA data protection, though they probably do because it's so lax, just because you uploaded a PDF of a medical bill to their cloud.)
There is no section 15 or 16 in GPLv3, but I did find section 7 saying:
Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; or
But that's an optional thing that you must add onto the GPLv3 license. I'll have to keep that in mind for the future.
That would explain why what I've read mentioned it's not guaranteed in GPLv3 (when comparing to MIT). I'll have to figure out what that notice would look like.
GPL has no requirements for author attribution which is contrary to the entire point of an MIT license.
That's why I described it as joining the Borg. You release individualism and freely give it to the collective. That's cool, and I get the ethos behind all that, but I don't want to add any of those constraints to my code. I just don't want credit for my work or the others to get lost. I don't think it's a hard ask.
Regardless, we ended up ultimately being a full replacement for the other project.
I don't care if people make money to use my code. I just want my name attached to it somehow, even if you make it closed sourced which is MIT and OpenBSD. I hope you do use my code and even if you heavily reference it to make something new, carry that forward so more can learn and benefit.
I also don't understand "better for the end user" arguments either. I have a library that people want to be included in another project, but that project is GPL. They won't merge my code unless I change my code to be GPL. So everyone who wants them merged is out of luck. I can't merge their code either with mine. What is supposed to happen is I freely give up my name to the code and restrict it to only being GPL and for GPL projects. Essentially, assimilate and join with the Borg. No, thanks.
And while that's from my experience, I've also seen good projects get traction, have excitement over it, and fall off the earth because they end up making it GPL. Everyone interested in adopting it, personal or business, just disappear. Then something with less restrictions comes along and gets adopted.
End-users move to what's better for them, and if you have a library that is only for GPL, you can end up limiting your options with a wasteful purity test. If you want it to be free you'd give freely with no restrictions. And if you think, "You can contact me to discuss licensing" that doesn't happen. It's still a restriction and almost nobody actually bothers.
Steam has limited rollback support from the command line which we had to do plenty of times for Starfield when working on Luma. Sometimes updates are small. Sometimes the entire exe gets reshuffled so you have to find where to patch the exe all over again.
All the versions are apparently there. You just need to download the "depot" and it'll dump into a folder. From there you copy that folder over your game directly.
It also works the other way around. I can download the depot for the latest version and stay on the version I'm at. It's useful to pick apart and diff what was actually changed.
Why they can't add that as an option I'm not sure. That seems more of a UX/UI issue rather than a technical one (like avoiding people using old versions on the web server).
I was about to mod the game for HDR and then found out news of FO4 getting updated.
Updates break mods. Just how it is. Though, after seeing the work needed for modding Starfield after each exe change, I'm doing shader replacement now. As long as they don't change from DirectX, I should be good.
Edit: Nevermind. Somebody asked me for help and got roped in. Got HDR working. Let's see if it actually lasts.