They'd disclosed it but the first one hadn't finished testifying under oath about it. And that matters. The latter has status as evidence in court.

It retains headcount to keep managers employed.

Batteries are typically rated in units of energy i.e. joules or more typically MWh. While they do have a maximum power drain (and charge) raiting that's generally not a helpful number to quote since there is a huge difference in a battery that provides 500MW for 1s vs. 1 day whereas a 500MWh battery can easily be configured for multiple different power draws.

So either you mean 500MWh or else the company you quote are releasing meaningless numbers either because they do not know any better (and this is high school level physics) or are deliberately trying to mislead and neither option suggests anyone should have any confidence in the number.

It kind of is a different OS, but it's gestating inside of Linux, growing every year, and at some point it will start deprecating Linux out of the nest and eventually we'll all be running SystemD-OS (which used to include Linux, back in the day).

Humanity: hold our beer!

One decade might be a stretch, but after less than two centuries, we burned most of easily mineable coal already.

And that's a problem, how? That's the cleanest, safest, cheapest power source we have; only geothermal is a contender but the latter is not available in the vast majority of places.

So my laptop has soldered RAM, no cooling fans, less than three pounds -- and costs less than a single RAM stick (out of 8) in the desktop I ssh into.

It's a Pinebook Pro from 2019; I don't see any need to upgrade it as it's adequate for client tasks. Unless it breaks beyond repair, I'd rather upgrade the big box.

Because if they're explaining to non-scientists, they might as well be explaining to babies. The foundational knowledge taught in schools simply isn't up to the standard needed.

If you can't make useful predictions within the parameters of your model, you can't test the ideas. Ergo, the shut up and calculate side does have a good argument.

Previously, in physics, there has been a three-way dance between theorists who develop the mathematical description, theorists who develop the mechanical description, and practical physicists who carry out observations both to test the theories and to apply them in practical terms. This dance kept everything moving.

This may or may not be the correct way to approach quantum mechanics. The rules are very different in that domain.

On the other hand, it's easy to spot the hostility between the groups and it's obvious that the anticipated new physics isn't getting found. New models are rare and are struggling. The dance hasn't completely stopped, but it is definitely in trouble.

But, of course, that might equally be down to the increased competition, the need to publish trivial results quickly rather than do anything profound, and the greatly reduced investment in blue sky science.

I'm going to suggest it's a mix of stuff. We need a lot more funding, a lot less aggro, and we either need to get the mechanical description partner back on their feet or we need to find an alternative to them if that sort of description just doesn't work in this arena.

But I think the science dance needs three sides. I think we're going to find that the calculate lobby can't advance a whole lot further on their own, and that they cannot produce a theory of everything without some idea of what an everything is.

It doesn't make sense to pay $199 for another set of hardware that does the same things as the hardware you already paid for and carry around with you.

I hope that clarified things.

It does if you are in somewhere like Canada but it actually says something slightly, but importantly, different if you are in the US. Instead of stating it as a right, the US constitution only prevents the US congress from passing a law that abridges freedom of speech. The key difference is that this only binds the US government from resgtricting it whereas an actual right binds everyone, including companies, from restricting it.

In today's world where companies have considerable power this is becoming an incresingly important difference.

That's nothing, we had Exabyte tapes back in the 1990s.

If a manufacturer knows that a system has a specific defect that makes it dangerous to use in certain contexts, it is usually obliged by law to report those circumstances. The license agreement is not necessarily considered legally binding or protective where there is a case of wilful neglect. Deliberate actions are not treated the same as lack of awareness or even negligence. But even negligence may be treated unsympathetically by the courts, no matter what customers sign up to.

Given that this defect could have left exposed critical infrastructure, banks, and businesses whose work is in the national interest, one might even be able to argue a case that this gave succour to hostile powers.

The most probable outcome is nothing happening. Companies are risk-averse and Microsoft has expensive lawyers. But a class action suit for wilful endangerment isn't wholly impossible, and I could see the DOJ investigating whether laws were broken, but only after the election.

The summary only mentions vulnerability to physical access so disconnecting it is not enough - did you wipe any account information as well? Generally it is much harder to protect something when you have physical access to it and I suspect most Android devices would fail under those conditions. However, by the time someone else has physical access to your TV they are in your home and have access to a lot of sensitive information.