There's a huge difference:

Our governments, at least in theory, are controlled by us, the people. Ok, the 1% who make the major campaign contributions. But that's still a lot of people.

The number of SpaceX or Amazon shareholders who have enough shares to have a say in these matters is single-digits. So power is concentrated in much fewer hands.

Given dynamic battlefield, I don't think that is as easily done as you think, and the moment SpaceX makes a mistake and knocks out a Ukrainian drone on a mission, they'll be guilty for everything. There's not really a winning position for them here.

Russia isn't hiding that it targets civilian infrastructure. They still wage war the way everyone did it in 1939-1945. US and UK bombers essentially just opened the doors above German cities and let the unguided bombs fall wherever. We're not doing that anymore because most of the world learned that despite all this, they didn't exactly surrender. So it's a huge waste of resources. Russia, on the other hand, still thinks that Ukrainians will agree to becoming Russians due to a few cold and dark winters.

Hiding money flow from public view. It is trivial to automatically trace all transfers on the blockchain. And the same way I don't post my banking history to the Internet, I have a reasonable need to not have all of my Bitcoin transactions fully transparent to everyone in the world.

So tl;dr: The legal use is: Protect my privacy.

That doesn't mean I am doing anything illegal. I might be doing something perfectly legal but socially controversial - maybe I make campaign contributions to the communist party, or consume an unhealthy amount of furry porn. It might also be legal but I have a need to hide my finances from someone specific - maybe an abusive spouse, maybe overly controlling parent, maybe a stalker.

For the moment, Bitcoin is still a bit of a niche thing, but the more it moves into mainstream, the more people will have the interest and the capabilities to use Bitcoin to breach people's privacy when they use Bitcoins to pay for something.

No, I'm not. Don't be a sperg.

No, it isn't. 12oz 4pk@$10.99 = $2.75

No, it isn't. ~56,500 12oz in a 80k lbs trailer, max.

Wrong "value." Retailers don't pay retail, obviously.

Shouldn't the OS be able to cast the screen, rather than this being a function of the application?

I propose a law requiring companies to continue to provide old versions of software. They can remove a feature from the new version, but I can still get the old one. In the past, if Microsoft removed a feature from Word 2005 for example, then one could refuse to upgrade. I could save the installer. Yes, eventually it won't work any longer, and I am not saying they must support every version into perpetuity. But if Netflix removes a feature, I can't download the old version. So they should be barred from putting a barrier in place preventing access or use of it.

Dangit, stupid HTML filter! The was supposed to be "Oh no, open source doesn't support [INSERT ENSHITTIFICATION HERE] like customers want!"

I think it was intended to be drippingly sarcastic. Sloppy is pretending that the failure to screen cast is a feature that customers wanted, then constructing a sentence like "Oh no, open source doesn't support like customers want!"

Yeah, the energy drinks aren't going to make anyone wealthy, but it's still a payday. The retail value of a trailer full of Red Bull is about $130,000. Figure they'll get maybe 10% of that from some retailer and you clear $13,000, tax free. Low risk, because it's not drugs or guns or whatever. Not bad for maybe a couple hours work.

This is why browsers should not launch apps without first prompting. Steam, Discord, Roblox, GlobalProtect VPN, and BeyondTrust, Office 365/Teams, and gzillions more work this way. You should never click the "[ ] Don't prompt me any more for this application" button. This allows any arbitrary web site to get out of the browser sandbox and chain to security flaws (or even direct features like "subscribe to podcast") that are in the application.

In other news, the catholic church is suing OpenAI because they had the idea to simply make suicide illegal a thousand years ago and have been using it ever since.

Not sure if it's a trade secret or a copyright case, the news often don't mention the fine details.

That's a good point. Here on /. I can assume people know what open world games are. Out in the real world movies are probably the better analogy.

Why Microsoft is calling Windows 10 ‘the last version of Windows’ May 7th, 2015
Why Microsoft Announced Windows 10 Is 'The Last Version Of Windows' May 8, 2015
Windows 10 will be 'the last version of Windows' from May 11, 2015

I think this view gives the crypto bros too much credit. They might now be thinking about taking advantage of the opportunity to wrestle the system away from the Wall Street bros, but there was no such plan.

To intercept them you still have to identify them, which you can't do until after they perform the sabotage. Given that, what's the benefit in sinking them rather than seizing them? Sinking them gains you nothing, seizing them gains you the sabotage vessel. It probably won't be worth much, but more than nothing. I guess sinking them saves the cost of imprisoning the crew, but I'd rather imprison them for a few years than murder them.