of course it is a sane assumption. Their nuclear missile launch tests fail for a good reason as well, rocket engines, airplane engines and parts were made in Ukraine, the engineers who made them were Ukrainians. All of the ruzzkies capacity is used up to rebuild tanks and produce military equipment, missiles, gun rounds, shahed drones, whatever. Building a gigantic complex platform actually requires resources they do not have.

for the same reason I wouldn't hire an Islamist or a palestenian sympathiser.

The figures can be entirely correct and still the answer can be "no". Why? Because Android might use the Linux kernel, but it isn't really a Linux distro in any meaningful sense of the word. And Steam Deck and Chromebooks *can* have some reasonable facsimile of a Linux development environment, but I'd expect maybe 0.1% of users to actually turn it on.

So most of those folks are Linux "users" in much the same way that TiVo owners were linux "users", i.e. they are using a device that deep down, at a level that the user is unaware of, runs some small subset of what a Linux distro typically contains, with a bunch of stuff on top that they mostly aren't in control over.

It's like calling Mac users UNIX users. It's technically correct — the best kind of correct — but grossly misleading.

I refuse to have ads in any paid service.

My Slashdot still has Disable Advertising (from donating back in the day) and every now and then they STILL JUST IGNORE IT.

Fortunately, it's not an ongonig subscription, so I don't really care that much but - I paid for a reason. The button is still there for a reason. Honour it, or give me my money back.

I wouldn't ever pay a monthly subscription and then tolerate even a single second of an ad or one appearing on the screen anywhere. It's one or the other, not mix-and-match.

It's also one of the reasons that I don't have any monthly subscriptions to things - because apparently even your PAYING CUSTOMERS are just ad-revenue nowadays.

"One of them was to increase daily active users by 5% by the end of the year."

Gonna need a bit more than that to pay back those $1tn loans...

The destroyed 8U216 service cabin used for Soyuz launches was manufactured at the Novokramatorsk Machine Building Plant in Kramatorsk, Donetsk region.

Of course this plant was bombed by ruzzia multiple times since the February 2022.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YQDNpqEf5us

ruzzia has a few options there.
1. leave everything as is and stop making launches, fire the unnecessary staff, forget about space.

2. get one of the platforms that were built and installed elsewhere (there are 3 of these used by their military in Plesetsk, 1 in Vostochny, this one is used once per year. Ask the one in French Guiana (South America) to be returned, it is no longer in use anyway. Ask the Kazakhs for the first one that was used to launch the first Vostok rocket with Gagarin to be moved from the museum site.

3. build a new factory somewhere, train new staff, construct a new platform.

4. fix the one that was blown to pieces.

AFAIC ruzzia can and needs to go to hell. I hire people, I won't hire a ruzzian, the world needs to get its act together and start using space wothput them.

>"we've got a new social norm. It's illegal for tech companies to give unsupervised access to social media. Have you been paying attention at all?"

1) It shouldn't be up to the "social media" companies.
2) They have no way of determining if someone is a minor other than to strip ALL people of their privacy.
3) That isn't a "social norm", it is just a law. Big difference.
4) And the "social norm" should be no unrestricted access to the Internet at all, not just so-called "social media." There are MILLIONS of other sites children should not interact with.
5) There is no good definition of "social media", so they are just listing some of the popular ones.

This doesn't solve all the problems, and in the process, it makes new ones that are just as bad- penalizing adults is one of them.

>"So you're saying the restrictions need to be stronger to capture some of that other 99%? Or were you planning on banning phones and computers themselves?"

We are talking about minors. They shouldn't have unsupervised access to unrestricted devices connected to the Internet. I am not saying we ban anything for adults. But children should not have access to things that are dangerous. And that isn't up to companies or government, but to parents and their agents. We need to set a new social norm that it is not OK to just give unrestricted devices to minors. Just like it is not OK to give them unrestricted access to knives, medications, alcohol, strangers, vehicles, junk food, etc. That should NOT involve "ID"'ing everyone for every web site.

Even before I read the rest of the quote, my immediate conclusion is that those people were crazy to begin with.

Ayup. There are people out there you would not trust to drive your kid to the library. Or to have sharp knives in their kitchen. I assert there is overlap between those people and the people who can't operate a chatbot without losing their marbles.

Sounds about right. Something like 2.5% of the population is flat-out retarded, and another 6% or so aren't retarded but fall below useful IQ of like 83.

>"Is almost universally not about the children. In this case it's about de-anonymizing the Internet to aid in mass surveillance."

Bingo.

Because the kids will just get their fix on one of the 99.99999999999% of the sites that are NOT being blocked to them.

The problem is that kids SHOULD NOT HAVE UNSUPERVISED ACCESS to devices that can go just anywhere on the Internet in the first place. Or call/message/txt/media to/from any stranger. The devices are the problems. Parents should be parents and give their children restricted devices. Instead, we try to force every human (which means all adults and children) to PROVE who they are before they access popular sites. It is a big business/government wet dream come true.

It'll tell you all about warp factors and quantum improbability drives, and cite all its sources, to boot.

Damn. You're right. That article doesn't say it, and I didn't find the one I originally read, which was about bacteria living deep in the earth where the radiation generated ionization states that they used. IIRC it was about bacteria living in a granite based low-level uranium source. And they were living a lot deeper than previously detected bacteria. (This was about 3-4 decades ago, so it's not surprising that I can't find that article. I think it was in Science News, but possibly it was in New Scientist. In any case, what I read was a magazine article. And it was rather explicit...though of course not detailed.)

>"If we are adding in FreeBSD, Android etc, might as well also add in MacOS. They are all quite similar from a user point of view and all based off one or the other NIXes"

Not really. It isn't free, much of it isn't open, doesn't use X11 or Wayland, doesn't use any of the Linux desktop environments, and it really only runs on Apple hardware. Very different in many ways from Linux or BSD.

Although I think that throwing "unknown" and "BSD" into the Linux count is not valid.

Here's one reference, though not the orginal one I read.
https://academic.oup.com/ismej...

Note that this is not DIRECTLY eating radiation, but that's still its energy source, as that's where the H molecule comes from. So to simplify, saying it eats radiation is not wrong.