There are three things at play here. You only hear people talking about one of them.

1. Several suppliers mean several sources that you need to subscribe to. That is bad.
2. Few suppliers mean zero resistance to astronomical price rises. That has the potential to be much worse.
3. HBO historically had a focus on quality content. Netflix not just historically, but currently as a policy are focusing on forgettable "background" entertainment, or as their CEO calls it "the second screen". Netflix's corporate direction destroying HBO would be a fucking disaster.

The things you describe are not mutually exclusives. Virtually all cameras come with some kind of cloud ability. A great many of them are still none the less completely local, and a subset of those, even those which "require" a cloud may also have an RTSP stream available which you could read out via Homeassistant or some other tool while the camera flashes it's light indicating that you haven't provisioned its cloud connection.

I just checked it's still 2025, thought I was in 1995 for a minute. No, most security cameras on the market aimed at consumers rather than commercial or professional installations do *not* need power. That said I do need to remove my cameras once every 6 months or so to charge them, a process that takes about 4 hours, but during those 4 hours I can just sit in the front yard with a shotgun in hand.

Once again Slashdot's self professed smartest person again proves he is able to only make the dumbest comments.

More comedy gold from our favourite moron.

Australia is infamously a place which bans certain video games. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make because it certainly seems like Australian gamers don't feel very oppressed.

Kids do not have their own discretion, period. Actually the gaming example is far worse than the social media ban as it affects adults too, and yet you didn't even know about it.

Unfortunately your analogy isn't correct. Hot and cold water don't mix unless you force them to mix or the density differences pushed them against each other. The hot will attempt to rise to the top, the cold to the bottom. It's a physical property exploited by tank water heaters to get more heating power out than gets put in by heating different areas of the water tank differently at different times knowing that the fresh cold water added at the bottom won't mix with the hot. Your bucket example upside down would result in a bucket that is half hot, and half cold. Air on the other hand does mix a bit more chaotically, it's a function of gas's density to be more chaotic.

By the way have you ever swam in the ocean and noticed some spots are hotter than others? It's not because you're swimming through fresh fish pee.

The atmosphere part of your post is correct through. But this "mixing" in water is not an example of this in action. The mixing of air in the atmosphere is the result of air currents created both locally due to localised temperature differences and globally due to the earth's rotation.

A good analogy of how the polar vortex works are the air curtain airconditioning units you find at entrances into buildings. When you turn them off, drafts and currents as well as people moving in and out cause the hot air inside and the cold air outside to be exchanged. When the polar votex breaks down, it is localised temperature effects that causes the colder parts of the atmosphere to be drawn towards them creating mixing.

I'm not sure about that. It seems the government in this case are the only ones in the world who have the interests of the kids in their heart. God know parents are fucking useless raising TikTok zombies.

Children don't have absolute rights anywhere, not even in the US of fucking Eyh!

It's borderline worthless trying to get any people to agree anything over a Teams meeting let alone hold an international debate. That's not to say COP30 achieved anything, it didn't.

The two are nothing alike. British politeness is sometimes unbearable but in India the "yes" culture isn't even stopped by agreeing to two incompatible things. The answer there is to lie to your face by agreeing and then apologising afterwards.

It is an insane culture where you can't be sure that what you agreed on will actually happen in the slightest.

Not comparable in the slightest. The Japanese may not say no, but they don't do it while lying, as evident by your example. The Indians will outright say yes to your face and then apologise afterwards when they don't do the thing they said yes to.

This isn't just project management, this is as straight forward as "Pick me up from the hotel at 1pm." "Yes Sir" and after catching an Uber to my destination I got a "Sorry Sir" the day after when the guy who said yes flat out admitted that he knew he wasn't rostered on that day. Or the other time a few days later when a colleague of mine agreed to go to two meetings at the same time knowing full well the second was a clash and despite the second being trivially movable an hour later.

That is not how antitrust laws work in any place on the planet. And the rest of the places definitely do enforce their laws.

Indeed. Given the number of employees I would have figured it would be an order of magnitude higher than that at least. The Pentagon got an awesome deal.

You misspelled "flood a road away" The height of moving water is quite insignificant to the speed at which it moves. An 18" tsunami may get your feet wet, or may take you and your car across the suburb destroying quite a lot in its path.

The question is one of momentum. Very shallow water can be insanely destructive depending on how it moves. Just a few inches of expected moving water is required to have engineering considerations for foundations to prevent them being undermined.

Providing you don't double dip there's nothing wrong with that. The concepts are different for an asset disposed of at end of life vs an asset that is kept for its value. You'll find that in the accounting world no one (who isn't committing fraud) is depreciating real-estate. They are depreciating the value of the buildings (39 years, not 30 years), while the realestate itself is kept as an asset on the books. The IRS would have some very interesting things to say for you if you attempted to depreciate the property as opposed to the things built on it which do in fact wear out over time and require renovation.

You've missed the point. They are pushing out the depreciation time beyond the usable life of the product. That is fine as long as they take an impairment charge, but the whole point being made is that it artificially inflates their profits *today*.

If you don't understand why this is a problem in a time of an AI bubble where tech stocks are trading at ludicrous values then I can't help you.