wat10000

At least when I plug a monitor into my Mac, it doesn't install anything. And somehow it still works despite this.

Plenty of people at the time thought slavery was evil. Franklin was even one of them, calling it "cancer." He said this while still owning slaves, which is rather peculiar, but people are complicated.

Or they ran the numbers and saw that they'll make more money with ads than without. I doubt they care about anything but the bottom line.

If the person you're impersonating shows up to vote too, then that will be noticed and there will be questions. If they don't, there are still opportunities to notice issues after the fact. Get a list of who voted, call a random sample and ask if they actually voted. Check for dead people or noncitizens.

There isn't a ton of checking in advance but that doesn't mean we can't know if the results are legit. If there was a concerted, large-scale effort to impersonate voters, it could be done, and it would seriously screw things up. But it would not go undetected.

To paraphrase a popular saying: if one of your countrymen believes a bunch of bullshit, they have a problem. If tens of millions of our countrymen believe a bunch of bullshit, we all have a problem.

I don't think it's high at all. Elections are required for almost any legitimate government these days. Russia has elections. China has elections. North Korea has elections. The question is not whether there will be elections, but whether they will be free and fair.

Are you seriously suggesting that Trump would have won California if not for cheating?

Despite what people say, absence of evidence is evidence of absence, if you've gone looking for the evidence and it's something that you should find if the claim is true. There's a bunch of evidence we'd expect to see if there was enough cheating to swing the election, and we don't see it. All we have is evidence of some pathetic attempts by the actual loser to overturn things.

The problem is that everyone doesn't know this to be false. A substantial portion of the population "knows" it to be true.

The government never needs a warrant merely to ask for info, and a private entity doesn't need a warrant to voluntarily hand over info that they have. If we had decent privacy protections then a private entity couldn't decide to just hand over whatever data they have on others, but, well, we don't.

You’re missing the word “directly.”

More people can afford to buy a toilet than ever before. The same may not be true of affording a plumber to install it.

Externalities must be accounted for. Once that’s done, cheap should correlate well with being less ecologically harmful.

The opposite is actually true in reality. More people can afford X than ever before, for nearly any X that doesn’t involve directly paying for someone else’s labor.

It also depends on what you consider to be “criminal.” I’d wager most shoplifters are dumb. Most supervisors who engage in wage theft aren’t dumb. But that’s not the kind of person who comes to mind when we think “criminal.”

Except it was. They didn’t spend over $1 million/vehicle on stock Tahoes, but that’s what they cost when fully customized for this force.

Who’s “we”?

If you can put the things in space, then you can put them anywhere in the world. They don’t need to go in American suburbs. I bet Mongolia would be happy to host you in exchange for the cost of a few rocket launches. Or put them on container ships and run them in the middle of the ocean. All sorts of completely crazy ideas are easier and cheaper than space.

If they did significantly better than random chance, they should be able to use that to become filthy rich in fairly short order, and you’d only be hearing their advice because they publish it as a hobby in between yachting. I don’t think there are any analysts like that.

All the concrete stuff you describe is plenty justification for a really high valuation. Maybe a couple hundred billion, even. To justify a couple trillion, you have to really believe in orbital data centers, which just don’t make much sense. If NIMBY is the issue, it’s literally a thousand times cheaper to bribe the government of some poor country and put your stuff there than it is to put it in fricken space.

Or you don’t and you return this piece of garbage for a refund. I hope you can see how this is much superior to auto-installing malware.

Auto-run when inserting a CD worked great, until people realized you could do bad stuff with it. User action must be required to run or install new software.

I suppose companies like Nike are to blame for putting their logo on things as well.

That report proposed three pretty reasonable approaches to this problem, and none of them were "avoid curing diseases."

And utilities are typically natural monopolies. They're good candidates for regulation because they're essentials and they don't have competitive forces to keep them behaving reasonably.

AWS has plentiful competitors. If you don't like their behavior, don't patronize them!

Thin clients are incredibly popular these days. It's just that the PC or smartphone is the thin client, and the central "PC" is the cloud.

wat

Apple comes down hard on employees who merely leak to the press. Taking internal documents to a competitor is not going to be fun.

Guess what, I don't like or watch those either.

It's like using an excavator to arrange a bunch of big stones in a circle and saying it's a new Stonehenge. The excavator is obviously a powerful tool, it took you an hour to do what took the ancients a huge amount of time and effort. But why should anybody care? The stones aren't the actual point of Stonehenge, despite the name. It's the history and meaning.

If the input was a few sentences, an hour of waiting, and $50, why should I value the result any more highly than Excavatorhenge?

It's intentionally rather limited. There's no validation of the input moves, and it leaves out some important rules.

Moves are trusted and given in plain coordinates: no click-to-move, no castling, en passant, or promotion.

I did a search and there are like three such comments in the past year, including this one.