This is true. It's because China has high skilled and almost-slave labour colocated. And America has labour laws. What China is doing is impressive nonetheless.

It's absurd to compare freedoms in the USA to that of China, where political prisoners are literally chopped up to sell their organs. And Chinese people aren't stupid: about 3-4 million emigrate each year.

Parts of the Chinese economy are "pretty normal capitalism". However the majority of capital is directed by state banks to state industries. This is classical socialism, where the government controls the "commanding heights" of the economy. So pretty far from capitalism which relies on price signalling in the allocation of capital.

It's a brute fact that China's economy is suffering from a lack of price signalling, and that this is causing a massive misallocation of resources. The same thing happened to the USSR and the Eastern block, which certainly succeeded in driving steel production higher than the USA. Just... there wasn't any productive use for the oversupply. In the 1980s, one economist wryly noted that East German heavy machinery was worth less than the raw materials it was made out of.

The CCP is big on selling you on the idea of the inevitable rise of China. It's all optics. The psychological warfare of fear and greed. They are sitting on unprecedented levels of capital misallocation. Great. They can fix all that. But they'd have to change the system that produced the misallocation in the first place, and I certainly don't see that happening.

China isn't going anywhere. It's still going to be here in the future. The CCP has the tools of social control to pick winners and losers, and grind the underclasses to keep the system going. What's going to change is the optics.

"Only the finest-quality unwanted shit will be smeared on your fridge door."

It used to be 26 episodes per season, with each episode airing twice during the year. It was a nice, simple way of filling the broadcast schedule. That shifted to 24 episodes at some point. There was a bigger shift, I think in the early 2000s, where they started having separate shows for the summer, and seasons started getting much shorter, sometimes more like 13 episodes. Now streaming services will put out 6-7 episode seasons; only a quarter of what a season used to be.

The good part of this is that you no longer get filler episodes. I remember watching shows like Stargate SG-1, and there were inevitably a few junk episodes, like a clip show that has some excuse to edit together a bunch of clips of previous episodes, or some episode that really didn't do much because they clearly spent all their budget already. I don't miss those. But with only 6 episodes, it's down to the same run-time as a miniseries, and things sometimes feel rushed.

For shows that are telling a story over the course of a season, the shorter episodes sometimes work well, but for more episodic shows (like Doctor Who), it just feels like you're getting shorted (because you are).

For many shows, the driving force is the quality of the writing and acting. Would the studios do better to spend less on the production and get more episodes for the same money? Good stories outweigh good effects.

"USENET died when ISPs noticed few users actually used it" - it also died a bit when deja-news was bought by google, turning it into google groups. ISPs were now thinking (incorrectly, of course) that they were paying for some Google branded service...that was coincidentally getting less use directly because Google was offering a web page interface to the same data.

So it was a gradual fade-out at the ISPs initially as people started trying web-bb's (never totally caught on, and survivers like SJGames' illuminati board have really low participation for the readership, really). The fadeout accelerated when Google replaced the usage of the service AND the impression it was an open, distributed system into Google one that Google alone should be paying for.

They are breeding coral that is more tolerant of higher temperatures.

Did you read the article to the end? These number are not verified.

No, because experience isn't a protected category. Age is, but only in certain cases mostly dealing with existing employees. Youth isn't protected at all:

https://www.eeoc.gov/age-discr...

"The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older. It does not protect workers under the age of 40, although some states have laws that protect younger workers from age discrimination. It is not illegal for an employer or other covered entity to favor an older worker over a younger one, even if both workers are age 40 or older."

How long until they crack this new thing? 6 months? 1 year?

The exploit chain does not cost millions of dollars to execute. It's simply the cost to buy the information from the right people. That's like spending four figures for a set of build plans for a coffee table, making the table, and then claiming the coffee table is worth thousands of dollars.

Information can be leaked or "rediscovered" by anyone not trying to run a spyware business and lower that barrier to entry significantly.

We all live on the same planet. Shifting your carbon footprint to someone else's numbers where they don't have any legally-binding limit doesn't solve anything.

Rides to and from airports are regulated, and there's a lot of money involved. That means the existing players are lobbying hard to keep the new competition out. If this is like everything else in history, they'll succeed only in delaying it. That delay will make the finances that much harder for new players, which may result in some failing, but eventually they'll get in. Considering that Tesla and Waymo have significant resources, they'll probably be the ones to break in to airport rides first. (Tesla just started trying to get the permits in California.)

Actually he won't, because they already are using this as messaging that the Biden administration (and the already fired BLS exec) were lying about job numbers the whole time in order to make Biden look good going into the election.

Now this is where we can't trust the revisal - is it to justify the dismissal, or is it real, or is it both?

Nothing is trustworthy anymore, to the extent it ever was in the first place.