This is a fair and proportionate response to such a ridiculous policy. The idea of a nation taxing a foreign company not operating within their borders for transactions with (or involving) their citizens is preposterous, and it's curious how they even conceived of such a hare-brained cash-grab!

That was, naturally, sarcasm. Uncle Sam *always* wants a piece of the pie. For instance, foreign streamers that monetize will (generally?) be taxed on earnings resulting from viewers in the US. I find this specific example interesting, but, more broadly, "foreign corporations" profiting off US citizens/companies will be required by the US to pay taxes on "Effectively Connected Income" (and possibly non-ECI, as well).
What's good for the goose...

In their defense, the comment to which they were replying could have benefited greatly from a second glance at the punctuation. The meaning was still reasonably clear, I agree; however, every comma in that post would have worked better as a period.

I'm glad I actually skimmed the article before posting, as I drew an inference from the summary that just wasn't true.
A neat idea, if they can make it practical, but I didn't see anywhere they mentioned the size of the apparatus to generate this result. How long would it take, I wonder, for the cost of building it to pencil out?

Didn't realize TCL had premium TVs. Only ever seen junk with their brand on it.

So dark....so delicious! :D

I was going to make a joke(?) about shortening that timeframe with another war, but I like yours better, haha!

I believe "client-side", in this context, is referring to the game application itself as a client of the online server hosting the session. In which case, there would be no concerns beyond normal application security.

Saw the title and my first thought was: "To better detect non-HP ink cartridges so it can refuse to print?"
To protect consumers from poor print quality, of course.

They should have asked the AI to help them design these computers for gaming. :-P

On a somewhat related note, the current state of AMD64 -> ARM64 in Windows 11 seems pretty decent, at least for some basic use cases. I had a client who wanted to run a piece of Windows-only software on their new MacBook M3. Originally, I tried the app a Windows 7 VM using x86 emulation, and it was trash. Not unexpected, but had hoped it wouldn't be quite that bad. Loaded Win11 ARM in a VM, instead, and it ran the x86 app just fine.

Ran Memtest86 on it for 3 days, never reported any errors. I presume that the instability only manifested under loads that were pushing the power usage above the limit (that is now) recommended by Intel. Memtest86 may not have pushed it across that threshold. From what I've read online, very math/arithmetic-heavy operations were more likely to be affected.
Didn't particularly test different archives / compression algorithms. The system could definitely extract some other various archives without error, including other LZMA2 archives. Checking the archives I tried, now, I see that the few similar archives I checked only had a 16MB dictionary, not a 64MB as in the NVIDIA package.

I helped a client with a gaming system running the Core i9-14900KS (iirc), that was crashing when trying to launch games. I similarly had to set the power limits to Intel's current recommendations to achieve stability. This was before I had heard about the issues with these Raptor Lake chips.

It also wasn't just games. Part of what tipped me off that I was seeing a processor issue was when the NVIDIA driver (a self-extracting 7-Zip archive) would consistently throw a CRC error at a random point during the process of unpacking the archive. Especially when it continued to occur while in WinPE, haha!
Very disappointing given these CPUs seem to be marketed for gamers/enthusiasts and considering the expense. I've been considering using Intel on my next build due to some advantages Intel enjoys in some proprietary software, but these kind of shenanigans continue to keep me away.

When someone is professional [something], they will tend to optimize, consciously or otherwise, for whatever allows them to continue/succeed at their profession. (assuming some level of competition for clients/resources)
Researchers aren't an exception; they, too, are human.
If getting the resources necessary to continue as a researcher requires being cited, then they will optimize for citations...or be replaced in favor of someone who did.

Not quite the same, but my desired for positive modding also leads to optimization. Hence this obligatory XKCD. :P

They have so many metrics involved in their ranking, and they've fallen victim to Goodhart's Law (relevant XKCD).
This is natural, of course. Google has slowly trashed the end-user experience to presumably support their core business (advertising), so it's only fair that sites target the rankings with attempts at SEO that Google then has to spend inordinate amounts of effort to try to sift through.

This time it's a valve for the liquid oxygen tanks. Last time it was a mile (or miles?) of flammable tape.
And yet, and as much of an eye-roller as the situation is, they're right to scrub the mission for the moment.
That is to say, I'm not sure I'd trust the Boeing launch with everything working perfectly, much less if something was demonstrably NOT working properly.

I'm all for removing reliance on TurboTax, H&R Block, etc, though I do have friends and clients that are tax preparers. I think Direct File is very much a step in the right direction, though it will naturally cost money to wean the public off the current providers.
IRS stated through the GAO that the combined costs to develop and run this initial pilot ran about $25 million**. That's pretty steep, but doesn't seem particularly egregious for essentially breaking into and disrupting an entrenched industry. The running costs for Direct File were estimated at $2.4 million**, which will certainly go up as/if the program expands, but so will the amount of revenue diverted from tax preparers.

** These numbers are disputed. According to a GAO report, there were a number of additional costs that should have been included, particularly costs related to the Direct File pilot incurred by the US Digital Service (USDS, a technology unit that is part of the Executive branch of the government) that were not required to be reimbursed from IRS. USDS developed the prototype that was eventually developed into the Direct File program and also loaned 29 staff to the IRS to assist with building and running Direct File)
GAO report about IRS Direct File