BZZZT!

I was talking about commercial space, not residential. The residential space tends to get rented.

Given the current state of the art, there's not even a guarantee that the real harm won't show up in the 2nd or even 3rd generation. Not all state of the art modifications prove to be stable.

If something goes wrong and the child needs expensive lifelong medical care for an unanticipated problem, guess who will be first to shout "NOT IT!"

Most of the second guessing of the pilot seems to assume the pilot could press pause and work out the alternatives on a chalkboard for an hour or two and then resume real-time with a solution in hand.

The fact is, it all happened in a handful of seconds. I doubt the pilot even had time to fully assess the problem before hitting the ground.

The problem is in the solution. Rationally, those Herdsmen need to hash out an agreementfor the fair use of that land to keep it just below it's carrying capacity.

But what really happens that some 'nobleman' declares the entire commons to belong to him and sends a goon squad to wipe out any herdsman who disagrees. He then 'allows' the herdsmen to use the land in exchange for a painfully large share of their productivity. For some reason he expects gratitude for that arrangement.

Alas, we've moved beyond even that. Now the 'nobleman', seeing that the herdsmen are making do with a smaller commons over the hill but unable to grab control of it sends his goons to salt the earth overnight so the herdsmen will have to 'rent' land from him.

But even that isn't enough for some. They want more 'rent' than any herdsman can pay while still making a living. So they leave the field fallow while trying to grab even more land. For some reason they think they can squeeze blood from a turnip.

If you find that unbelievable as an analogy, explain why there are entire blocks in NYC that haven't seen any space rented in over 10 years, yet the asking price hasn't budged even as the neighborhood has been given over to rats and junkies.

I can't say I would blame them.

And further tilt the balance towards on-prem.

I'll be sure to tell my very real clients their infrastructure doesn't exist.

At the rate the shutdown is going, perhaps we should take a cue from the billionaires and just stop paying.

So those funny things that look like desktop machines are not? and there's no LDAP or domain controllers involved?

That's funny because the places I'm familiar with have desktop machines, domain controllers, often a NAS or two, and a router with a firewall.

Cloud servers may have more than one user running things on the same CPU. God only knows who the other users actually are. In a corporate environment, everyone running jobs on the server works for the company. It doesn't reduce the risks to zero, but it does reduce them a lot.

Even as someone who votes left more than any other way, I'd be entirely okay with killing the AMT. It is a huge pain to deal with.

The real problem, IMO, is that Congress needs to get off its a** and pass laws requiring brokerages and retirement plans to provide all of the tax data in a fully computed form so that you can fill in the boxes on your tax worksheet and be done, rather than having to look through every single line and figure out which ones were short-term, which were long-term, which had foreign tax, etc. Even with TurboTax, even with basically everything coming from Edward Jones, it *still* takes me two or three hours every year to fill in the information correctly for my taxes. I can't imagine trying to do that by hand on paper.

The real problem with requiring icons to be a specific shape is that it makes apps harder to recognize. Just look at how much confusion Google's icon rebranding has been, with every icon looking a lot like a multicolored square, and you'll understand what I mean. Now imagine every app icon on an entire operating system being a rounded square.

Certainly true for highways, yes. There's also next to no good alternative to individual cars for highway driving, though. Amtrak is very, very limited, Greyhound is slow *and* very limited, airplanes are grossly fuel inefficient and are generally limited to relatively long distances, and that's about it.

Not sure why you think people would drive fewer miles. Most people in cars are trying to get to a specific place, not driving just to drive. Would people plan shorter trips? Maybe for some small percentage of leisure driving, but leisure driving is already a small percentage of driving, so that's a small reduction in fuel use for a small percentage of a small percentage of trips. That's hardly worth the negative impact on everything else.

That's not how stock grants work. That trillion dollars doesn't come from Tesla. It comes from the stock market through share dilution. The company can absolutely still be profitable no matter how much equity it chooses to give out.