Isn't it amazing how businesses have managed to turn fraud - a crime perpetrated against them, for which they are responsible for preventing it, detecting it, and absorbing any losses because of it - into "identity theft", a crime for which the consequences are dumped onto a third party who has to prove his or her innocence?

I think the corporate model now is simultaneously both "we own customer data we collected" and "the customer is responsible for his or her own data", nonsensical doublespeak designed to let them do what they want with minimal consequences.

AP style is to only capitalize the first word and proper nouns

https://www.apstylebook.com/?d...

search for "News media" and read the questions that follow

If NVidia build a fab, it would be great for them if/when their fab had cutting-edge processes and NVidia chips were the most profitable thing to run. But... what happens when their fab is out of date? NVidia chip designers would likely be forced to design for the NVidia fab anyway, and their hardware would fall behind. Or... what happens when their fab is updated? If they are one of the few on a new process, assuming they aren't sued by Intel for patent violations, should the NVidia fab lose out on potential revenue by building NVidia chips instead of more profitable Apple or Samsung chips?

Basically, if you aren't big enough and so far ahead of everyone else to keep all your own equipment running (i.e. Intel), nor are you able to contract in work (i.e. TSMC, GlobalFoundries), you aren't going to be successful with your own fab any more. You're either holding back your design shop, or holding back your fab, and either way you're not making as much profit as your competitors, which means you can't invest as much into your design shop or your fab.

Also, exploiting cultural differences. You won't get many Americans willing to live and eat in a dorm attached to the manufacturing plant, 800 miles from family, so they really have no distractions but work. (And of course you mention regulation, but having those workers for 12 hour shifts, 6 days a week, for 50 weeks straight can't hurt the bottom line - just the workers.)

That won't work, because it's much easier to mothball existing equipment, then bring it back online, than it is to invent, design, and build that equipment in the first place. Saudi Arabia would have to hold the price low indefinitely (increasing supply to keep up with increasing demand) or the price would creep back up until fracking is profitable again. And the cost for fracking will go down when you can recommission old equipment instead of buying new. (I doubt you can buy used equipment today because every piece every made is either broken or working a field already.)

In order for that strategy to work, you have to flood the market before alternatives are invented and designed. That's what happened in the '80s. There was a lot of talk about automobile efficiency after the oil crunch of the 1970s. While progress was made, the '80s oil boom and increased production slowed down a lot of the invention process. With solar efficiency where it is already, with viable electric cars here and more the horizon, and with fracking technology a sunk cost, I think it's too late. (Maybe it will slow the mindset shift necessary for the adoption of safer nuclear?)

Use the bone analogy. A fractured bone is a fault. After it heals, if you leave it alone, do you ever worry that the pent-up pressure will fracture it again on its own? And yet, if someone drilled into your (healed) bone fracture and injected it with high-pressure water, might it fracture again and then start moving?

They (the owners of the company, not the pseudo-person company itself) would happily agree to those terms, knowing that they are protected by investor and bankruptcy laws, and eventually their own deaths and inheritance laws. Those terms are thus meaningless. Long-term environmental protection must be done through preventative regulation, not through post-damage punishment, as the time scales ensure those responsible cannot be adequately punished.

I'm not making any claim as to whether fracking causes long-term environmental damage (though I'm happy it's not happening under my house), just pointing out that if it did, reactive punishment wouldn't stop it.

Physics is almost 14 billion years old, but parts of it are still unknown. Just because we've been doing something for 100 years doesn't mean we understand it completely.

Netflix doesn't have a choice here; they get most of their content from licensing deals and likely were pressured into this by those providers.

The best thing you could do is support netflix and watch their original programming, so they can make more and cut out the established Big Content providers. (Until Netflix becomes one and we move on to the next new thing.)

If you did a full backup immediately before upgrading, I think you can restore that backup.

If it's still hot it's not waste, it's fuel. Reprocess that shit and use it again. Build all the nuclear plants on military bases (or give them military-style security) if the paranoid need to for security, but stop making reprocessing a taboo as it can greatly reduce the "spent" fuel problem.

Land dependency is Magic's number one flaw. It always has been. If there had been a rule like "You can play any card from your hand face down as a land that you can tap for one colorless mana" the game would be very different, but less flawed.

Mana screws, though, occur more on the game level than turn level. If you aren't in a game where you are screwed, your turns are based on strategy after randomness, i.e. draw a card then plan what you want to do based on the known board and hand state, with the pseudorandomness of your opponent's choices to keep play somewhat uncertain.

The issue is that the inexperienced players need to just do what the experienced ones tell them to, if the team wants to win. This leads to coops being dominated by the most vocal & experienced player. That player could just as easily play by himself, playing all the hands, as a solitary game.

That's why I don't care for most coops, at least.

The problem with cooperative games is that many of them devolve into the most dominant personality running the show, i.e. if we want to win, everyone has to do what the smartest person says they should. Games of this sort that allow recovery from the bad decisions of one team mate are often trivially easy if all the players are equals and execute flawlessly.

Party games, like Cards Against Humanity, or Telestrations (where we too don't keep score) are just for fun, but also don't remotely tickle the itch of someone looking for the intellectual challenge a strategic board game provides. Dixit perhaps gets closest for me, as I play into the strategy of predicting who might play what based on how well I know them.