There's nothing that screams 'trying to con you' quite as hard as a participant in a nominal free-market scenario trying to preserve ignorance and information asymmetry.

Dog-eat-dog company culture is a trademark feature of the USA. Everything has to be a competition, you have stuff like stack ranking where you sack the bottom 20% every year, so everyone does their best to try and push someone else down to avoid being the bottom of the stack. This cancer started at GE and spread from there. You can't blame India for that.

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.

What always puzzled me about Intel's...more peripheral...activities is that they seemed to fall into a weird, unhelpful, gap between 'doing some VC with the Xeon money; rather than just parking it in investments one notch riskier than savings accounts' and 'strategic additions to the core product'; which normally meant that the non-core stuff had limited synergies with intel systems; and had the risks associated with being a relatively minor program at a big company with a more profitable division; and thus subject to being coopted or killed at any time.

Seemed to happen both with internal projects and with acquisitions. Intel buys Altera because, um, FPGAs are cool and useful and it will 'accelerate innovation' if Intel is putting the PCIe-connected FPGA on the CPU's PCIe root complex rather than a 3rd party vendor doing it? Or something? Even at the tech demo level I'm not sure we even saw a single instance of an FPGA being put on the same package as a CPU(despite 'foveros' also being the advanced-packaging hotness that Intel assured us would make gluing IP blocks together easy and awesome). They just sort of bought them and churned them without any apparent integration. No 'FPGA with big fuck-off memory controller or PCIe root we borrowed from a xeon' type part. No 'Intel QuickAssist Technology now includes programmable FPGA blocks on select parts' CPUs or NICs. Just sort of Intel sells Altera stuff now.

On the network side, Intel just kind of did nothing with and then killed off both the internal Omni-path(good thing it didn't turn out that having an HPC focused interconnect you could run straight from your compute die would have been handy in the future...luckily NVlink never amounted to much...) and the stuff they bought from Barefoot; and at this point barely seems to ship NICs without fairly serious issues. I'm not even counting Lantiq; which they seem to have basically just spent 5 years passing on to Maxlinear with minimal effect; unless that one was somehow related to that period where they sold cable modem chipsets that really sucked. It's honestly downright weird how bad the news seems to be for anything that intel dabbles in that isn't the core business.

Not delivering on schedule is absolutely a symptom; it's just a somewhat diagnostically tricky one since the failure can come from several directions; and 'success' can be generated by gaming the system in several places, as well as by successful execution.

In the 'ideal' case things mostly happening on schedule is a good sign because it means both that the people doing the doing are productive and reliable and the people trying to plan have a decent sense(whether personally, or by knowing what they don't know and where they can get an honest assessment and doing so) of how long things are going to take; whether there's something useful that can be added or whether forcing some mythical man-month on the people already working on it would just be a burden; keeping an eye on whether there's anything in the critical path that is going to disrupt a bunch of other projects, and so on.

If you start losing your grip on the schedule, that fact alone doesn't tell you whether your execution is dysfunctional or your planners are delusional, or some combination of the two; but it's not a good sign. Unhelpfully, the relationship between how visibly the gantt charts are perturbed and how big a problem there is is non-obvious(a company whose execution is robust but whose planners live in a world of vibes-based theatre and one whose execution is dysfunctional and crumbling and whose planners are reusing estimates from the time before the rot set in might blow a roughly equal number of deadlines; despite one having mostly a fluff problem and one probably being in terminal decline); but it's never a good sign.

Can we please stop pretending that Elon Musk invented well... literally anything. Zip2, Paypal, Electric cars, rockets that both take off and land, solar power, battery power storage, tunnel boring, cybernetics, LEO communications satellites, AI/LLMs, self-driving cars/robotaxis, humanoid robots, flamethrowers, eugenics, etc. Every single thing he has been involved in is an idea that has been thought of before and published and often implemented before by other people. The hyperloop is not his idea. Aside from the many, many people who have thought of it before independently, Robert Goddard published plans for a vacuum tube train about 120 years ago.

So, whether or not a hyperloop could be practical, I really wish people would stop tying ideas like this to Musk. I am aware of course that there is an intersection between his fanboys and enthusiasts for such projects and also of course that his promotion of such things is one of the reasons he acquired some of those fanboys in the first place. The problem is that he ends up muddying the discussion. I would much rather discuss the practical aspects of the concept.

I am on the fence about it myself. On the one hand, in principle, it is a perfectly valid replacement for air travel, potentially not only far more efficient, but far faster. On the other hand, practical demonstrations of a hyperloop have not really materialized so far suggesting a great deal of difficulty in getting it to work in the real world. There are, of course, a lot of critics, but I have yet to see a debubunking of the concept with any significant technical rigor. From the summary:

I mean, that's mostly a load of garbage. "Intolerable noise and disruption"? I mean, has this Christian Wolmar ever been to a city? Not to mention, does it need to reach city centers? I've been to plenty of airports and a lot of them are very distinctly not in city centers, so why would a hyperloop terminal need to be? Although it also has much more technical feasibility than dropping an airport there.

Integrating with existing transport modes... It's a train. Isn't the guy supposed to be a train expert? Trains that carry people stop at train stations, where people then get off the train and either get on another train or proceed to cars in garages, taxi stands, or lots, shuttles, boats, planes, etc. That's how terminals work. Cargo generally would not need to be carried by such a high speed train. There might be special cargo, such as a car shuttle, so that people can drive in, park their car and have it waiting for them to board at the destination. Whether or not that is possible depends on some technical aspects of the train design, but it's not as if carrying cars is an existing mode of planes or most passenger trains.

As for passenger safety at such high speeds if something goes wrong... Well, if it's a non-catastrophic thing that goes wrong, the passengers generally will be fine. If it is catastrophic, they all die, probably instantly. Basically the same as with planes, minus the terrifying last few minutes.

As for the rest of the "doubts", there seems to be no practical reason that the capacity would be much of an issue compared to planes. As for energy costs, we don't know yet, but the whole idea involves almost frictionless travel with regenerative braking at the other end, with also an additional cost to maintain the vacuum (and possibly an energy cost for cryocooling superconductors, etc. depending on design), so the theory is that it should be low energy compared to jet planes.

As far as the economics of it not working, it is obviously way to early to determine that. As it stands, it is questionable whether the economics of air travel even work, so criticism of the unknown economics of this kind of rival for air travel seems questionable.

Basically, as far as I am concerned, time will tell for this, but I don't think we should pretend this is a settled question.

It seems reasonable; but also like something that should really spook the customers.

It seems to be generally accepted that junior devs start out as more of an investment than a genuine aid to productivity; so you try to pick the ones that seem sharp and with it, put some time into them, and treat them OK enough that they at least stick around long enough to become valuable and do some work for you.

If that dynamic is now being played out with someone else's bots, you are now making that investment in something that is less likely to leave, whatever as-a-service you are paying for will continue to take your money; but which is much more likely to have a price regularly and aggressively adjusted based on its perceived capabilities; and have whatever it learned from you immediately cloned out to every other customer.

Sort of a hybrid of the 'cloud' we-abstract-the-details arrangement and the 'body shop' we-provision-fungible-labor-units arrangement.

Some customers presumably won't care much; sort of the way people who use Wix because it's more professional than only having your business on Facebook don't exactly consider web design or site reliability to be relevant competencies; their choice is mostly going to be between pure off the shelf software and maybe-the-vibe-coded-stuff-is-good-enough; but if your operation depends in any way on your comparative ability to build software Amazon is basically telling you that any of the commercial offerings are actively process-mining you out of that advantage as fast as the wobbly state of the tech allows.

If the litigation is anything to go by; their "Suicide Solution" nostalgia callback colab with Sony Music Entertainment should be a hit!

From what little we get to see of their books; I full expect them to continue as an aggressively nonprofit org; for a while.

I further expect them to do so in a spirit of arrogant, rapacious, desperation that will just keep getting more intense until that while is up.

What kind of strawman is that? I never said anything about never having had an energy crisis or shortage of metals before. I said that we had never replaced ICE vehicles with EVs and had problems finding enough electricity to charge them either previously or now.

I am not sure what your point is here. As it is, plants are not as efficient at producing energy from sunlight as solar panels are, also corn is not the best energy crop anyway, and additionally making ethanol from an energy crop involves multiple steps that waste energy at each step. Might as well just burn the corn directly if you're using it to make electricity. Corn ethanol exists because there is a powerful corn lobby in the US that gets corn subsidized and also because, after the subsidies, ethanol is a cheap way to raise the octane rating of fuel (ethanol has an octane rating of 100-109, equal to or higher than iso-octane itself) which is useful for the petroleum industry in their "premium" gasoline scam.

They will put them at what they think is the optimal overlap of cheap land, electrical access and available data bandwidth. While they indeed don't care what they clear cut, the locations are still unlikely to be in forests. Also, aside from that, while they certainly are not environmentally sound, data centers are generally pretty compact in terms of land use, so this is pretty ridiculous. As for transmission loss, it is small enough that colocation of solar or wind power makes little sense for large, power hungry installations unless somehow the location is also perfect for solar or wind. It is actually more logistically sound to put solar and wind where they produce the most power and transmit that power.

In the US, the majority of household power is used for heating and cooling at around 52% with the second largest usage being water heating at about 18%, so those together account for 70% of usage. Now, to be clear, those are not all electrical in all homes. Obviously some homes use natural gas or even oil (sometimes wood) for heating and/or hot water though virtually never for refrigeration (technically you can have fossil fuel powered refrigerators like in many RVs, though even those are moving to battery and solar power). However, enough of that portion of household usage is electrical for it to still be a significant fraction of average household electrical usage. Refrigeration is around 5%, other appliances for cleaning, cooking, etc. take up somewhere in the neighborhood of 10% with lighting being around 7%. So the categories you mentioned (except for "central air" which falls under heating and cooling, which I covered, and of course EVs, which are also clearly covered in what I said before with typical miles driven per household) are only about 10% of household usage. So, aside from the TVs, game consoles, computers, cell phones, and unnecessarily "smart" devices, the other categories I mentioned are all devices that have a lot of room for improvement: heating and cooling can be significantly improved just by improving features like insulation and other passive heat control measures in many homes. Then the active heating/cooling measures have huge room for efficiency improvement as well, such as by replacing many existing systems with modern, high-efficiency heat pumps. Ditto for water heating. Heat pump-based water heaters can provide huge improvements. For refrigerators and other home appliances that I mentioned, there's clearly room for plenty of improvement in efficiency with much more efficient versions of refrigerators, washing machines, dishwashers, dryers available, and things like induction cooking, etc. available. For lighting, even though LED lighting has made a huge improvement and is nearly universal now, easily fifty percent of lighting power usage could be eliminated if homes had occupancy sensors installed to control lighting.
As for the TVs, game consoles, computers, cell phones, and unnecessary "smart" features of devices, IoT and all that, yes there is waste there. There is definitely room for improvement and I certainly agree that there are too many devices that simply never power off (although it's not like you actually need to go for the breakers when they plug into the wall or even into a power strip that has its own power switch - on that note I should point out that the "central air" is normally on a thermostat). Still, they're only a small percentage of overall usage and what room for improvement there is, if improved, would lower that as well.
Ultimately, just in the context of household EV usage, the extra power needed could be made up for by home efficiency improvements. So, the argument I made still stands. I should point out in addition though that household electricity usage is only about 38% of total electricity usage in the first place, and EV power would only be a fraction of that so, even if not offset by household efficiency improvements (which it certainly could be), it would not be a significant increase in electrical usage.

I can't even understand what you're trying to argue here. I mean, aside from positing a data center with power requirements at least an order of magnitude larger than any singular existing facility, making the bizarre assumption that it would operate solely using solar power, and making the other bizarre assumption that engineers designing a data center that runs only on solar power and battery storage would somehow forget that they would need to build out enough solar capacity to charge the batteries, what is the actual point?

Ultimately, aside from some general ranting and apparently subscribing to the nonsense anti-EV theory that somehow electrical power availability can't scale to support them, it is hard to discern what you are ultimately actually trying to say with all of this.

So the 'hyperloop' people have a cool website; while the 'train' people are just plain getting on with building stuff; whether conventional or the now-quarter-century-ish old maglev option.

Looks like someone signed up for another round of 'faff with apps vs. offshoring our entire high tech supply chain' and hoped it would work better this time.

And some dumbass 'managing director' is telling us that a gigantic safety-critical vacuum system is 'not effected by strikes'; more or less because he has no idea what the maintenance and operations would involve? Truly a joke telling itself.

Canadian content can be good, too. I loved watching Corner Gas.

They do. Some people don't use them; and (if disciplined) use one or more worksheets to store data and refer to it purely internally and (otherwise) just sort of ad-hoc mix data and formulas.

In some cases a database connection is where the data comes from; but the number of cells grows because it's conceptually easier(and in practice often less opaque, given the ugliness of displaying very large cell contents) to munge on the data step by step rather than trying to ram everything into one transformation.

Coming from the IT side; and having to field questions from the perpetrators of some absolutely hideous excel sheets from time to time(no, I didn't even know that there was a way of creating a type of embedded image that actually quietly triggers the print spooler subsystem to do something that generates a new image based on the contents of another region of the spreadsheet, still don't know how they did that; but it's objectively depraved) I understand the hate; but I do have to admit that spreadsheets are pretty good for napkin-math thinking-it-through type processes.

Like when you work it out on paper; you've got your input, then you have a cell with the contents of the first transformation you wanted to make, then the second, then the third, and so on, and at each step you can think "does this value make sense?"

It rapidly gets out of hand in quantity; but as a rapid sketchpad for thinking something through you could do a whole lot worse. It's also tempting(again, tempting down the path of darkness in quantity) for dealing with jobs that need both a bit of string munging and a pretty-printed output.

You send the intern down to storage with a barcode scanner and have them start snagging SNs and MACs and stuff from the shipment of new gear. Turns out various vendors use different prefixes on different barcode values to inform their own ERP/inventory system/warehouse people which of the 5 closely spaced barcodes their scanner hit. And each vendor uses a different set of conventions, and while obvious enough they aren't documented. Ok, no problem; intern comes back with raw list; all the Lenovo SNs get a 'last x characters' substring; all the Cisco MACs get another transform, whatever.

Obviously if it were your inventory/warehouse system you wouldn't be treating the barcode scanner as a raw HID device and doing ad-hoc transformations, there would be a program that automatically uses the prefixes to populate the correct parts of the form; but you want to stick your head into ERP project hell rather than come up with maybe a dozen lightweight string manipulations? Obviously, you could also do it in your choice of scripting language and iterate through one CSV to create another; but that mostly just conceals what you did from anyone who doesn't use that scripting language; while you can walk basically anyone employable through the logic of the spreadsheet prettifying.