I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but the truth is, we Europeans are only going to get through these times of de-globalization, demographic decline and power-shifts together. The UK would've been far better off throwing their weight behind EU issues that need solving rather than using the EU as a cheap scapegoat for the elites grabbing a paycheck and lining their pockets.
This has nothing to do with billionaires. You can decide right now to stop buying plastics, stop replacing your phone every year, give up your car and move to a city center, and stop supporting businesses that are oil based.
I don't want to stop buying plastics. I want to have the option to buy actually recycled plastics that actually get recycled. We can do this but we don't. We don't because the people with all the money who therefore control the means of production decide that we don't. "We" is a stretchy word. So is "you" and so's "can". Sure, you can choose to opt out of society, but it would make more sense to make society not shit all over everything.
Many couples don’t believe they can afford to start a family. As the cost of living continues to balloon, this affects a couple’s ability to raise children comfortably. For those contemplating whether to have children, the mere cost of child care, which is an average of $15,600 per year, provokes questions of whether it is even feasible.
This is not just future generation's problem. Catastrophic lack of affordability for housing, healthcare, and childcare results in fewer kids, this in turn means that in 20 years there will be less adults working and paying taxes, in turn bankrupting social nets. So today's childlessness crisis will translate to tomorrow destitute seniors crisis.
I guess that makes sense, but the wheeled vehicle isn't suited for that at all. In that case they'd have been better off just making a drone-in-a-box with convenient mounting points on the box.
just because people are allegedly told to use Oxford commas does not mean they are correct. I do not use them.
what if your list is two elements?
you can pretend there isn't a conflict but there is one.
NHTSA and NASA investigated not just the software but the actual cases.
NHTSA and NASA didn't study all of the code in the PCM. Their analysis is therefore invalid. Barr Group found a significant number of paths to unintended acceleration, zero of which depended on cosmic rays and also that Toyota not only didn't follow industry best practices, they didn't follow their own internal procedures. And you think China, which hasn't ever made the best software for anything, is immune to the same kinds of errors. You literally stated that there was no other way that it could happen, which is an obvious falsehood. It's unclear why you're engaging in this level of gaslighting.
first post modded redundant
suck this dick like trump sucked bubba, cuck
At least the main body got it right.
I doubt it is economically effective today to replace the parts that can actually do multi-gigabit.
I agree. In fact for most cable companies in particular it probably makes little sense to replace anything that can do even just 1 gigabit, because they almost surely have other regions or at least boroughs which are currently underserved.
Anecdotally speaking I think the demand for 10Gbs residential internet is low, and probably will be for some time.
I suspect it's mostly limited to sizable households with a lot of users. But we keep finding new ways to use available bandwidth...
You very much can touch that money
This is true, but it's also dangerous. On the other hand federal law allows you to expire them after 5 years. Some states don't allow them to ever expire, but most do. So eventually you do get some of that money back.
For new builds fiber obviously makes sense, but for the many places already serviced by coax DOCSIS 4.0 supports 10Gb/s.
That's both now (they could have done fiber a long time ago) and also the best case. Remember, "up to 10 Gbps speeds" (from your link) means anything from 0 bps to 10 Gbps.
now the best people quit and you're left with the very worst and least ambitious coworkers. [...] The CEO must be really clueless.
Yes, but not for the reason you think. He thinks he can have AI do all the work. This is a move to get rid of everyone who will go easily. Paying these severances has surely been calculated to be cheaper than fielding lawsuits for dismissal without "justifiable reasons." You can be sure that they will next move on to a just-barely-not-legally-provable hostile work environment in order to convince more people to quit. There is no urgent need for layoffs, just a dumb CEO idea, so doing a layoff isn't viable.
Same. I've never seen anyone get pissed off at it, which differentiates it from most other examples
"If it's not loud, it doesn't work!" -- Blank Reg, from "Max Headroom"
