This. Personally I am pretty happy with using Nvidia Shield devices instead of a PC; they run Kodi as well as Prime, Netflix and Apple TV, and you get Twitch, YouTube and other apps as well. And they are not a lock-in, you can always replace them with something else if you want or have to. The TV is not going anywhere near the internet.

For every law that has such an impact on our privacy, I think a few questions would need to be answered as part of the bill:
- What is the impact on our rights, and is that proportionate to the expected effects of the bill?
- What is the expected effect of the bill?
- How and when will that be measured?

With the understanding that if the bill does not have the desired effects (all kiddie porn will simply be moved through other channels), the law will be rescinded, not by vote but automatically

Take stupid bets, make stupid payouts.

As always, get the right paint for the job. There are reflective paints specifically designed for a variety of roofs. I painted the roof of my bedroom (a large dormer set in a tiled slanted roof) with the stuff, and it did help bring the temperature in the room down in summers. The biggest problem: on a flat roof, the paint gets dirty, and fast, losing a lot of its heat reflecting properties. Waste of €150 and an afternoon of work.

It's not the public, but insurance companies that matter. At least in sane societies that do not have the notion of punitive damages,
Once it is clear that robo-taxis, or self-driving cars, are safer than human-driven vehicles, insurance companies will take note and lower premiums for self-driving cars even if the operators are held responsible for whatever mayhem they are causing. In such a scenario, it is likely that your insurance premium will go up by a fair bit, if you insist on having a steering wheel and gear shift fitted to your new car.

Nice, I ought to look into it. I have some Windows only software that I expect will run fine in WINE, but it's games that keep me from migrating my main rig to Linux.

It's a big ask.

I always thought that should be the case: if a company grows beyond a certain market share, additional rules should kick in. Perhaps extra taxes, but certainly rules against them buying up more competitors in the same space. Grow even further, and they might be deemed a public utility subject to strict price and access regulations.

Companies have been broken up in the past, with good results. A company might split itself to get around antitrust laws, which is fine if it results in actual competition. If not, that's what we call collusion, and that is already illegal.

That's kind of what that (tired and overused term) "late stage capitalism" is: monopolies, oligopolies, and lack of competition. Companies seem to naturally gravitate towards cornering markets or collusion. The sad thing is that both in the US and the EU (and elsewhere too probably), antitrust laws have become a joke in practice. Capitalism needs checks and balances, and keeping the free market working is the most important one even for the more laissez-faire minded. That means strict rules around market share. a free market cannot function without meaningful competition.

I saw some the other day when visiting my mum. The ads drove me crazy, I haven't really seen one in a decade, and I can't imagine how we used to put up with them. Between streaming services, my personal media library, and a YT Premium subscription, my viewing is ad-free.

Been there done that, during crunch time, with paid overtime or time-for-time for the extra hours. It's fine as long as it's compensated, if the work itself is good, and if it's temporary, a few weeks max.

I could see myself doing it for longer periods in a promising but understaffed start-up... but if you expect me to work and be motivated like a founder, you better pay me like a founder too, with an equity stake, or options that I can take with me if you fire me (looking at you, Facebook...)

It's a flex. Same reason people buy $1000 bottles of iffy vodka for their friends in a night club.

I didn't write that, the person I was replying to did, and you didn't even get the quote right. But I'm done here.

The bulk of that cash isn't a subsidy (as those numbers point out), it's payment for services. I was talking about subsidies specifically, in reaction to this (surprisingly common) statement that lumps SpaceX's earnings and subsidies together, suggesting that they live mostly on handouts.

It's true that SpaceX would struggle without those federal contracts... so would many other companies. Lockheed Martin and RTX come to mind.

SpaceX received very few subsidies, they got a few tax credits and some money to develop stuff for the government. And all those lucrative federal contracts? The taxpayer is getting an absolute bargain with those.