All very true, except you imply that this is a new situation in US politics. It's not. Until the 1883 Pendleton Act, political appointments were always brazenly partisan and there was no non-partisan civil service (except, maybe, the military). Firing appointees for petty vindictiveness was less common, but also happened. Trump isn't so much creating a new situation in American government as he is rolling the clock back 150 years, to a time when US politics was a lot meaner and more corrupt than what we've been accustomed to for most of the last 100 or so years.

Of course, the time when our Republic has had an apolitical civil service, strong norms around executive constraint and relatively low tolerance for corruption corresponds with the time when our nation has been vastly more successful, on every possible metric. That's not a coincidence.

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.

I suspect it's mostly limited to sizable households with a lot of users. But we keep finding new ways to use available bandwidth...

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.

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.

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 :)

Oh, I forgot to add: Stage 6 is the dumbest and most short-sighted one yet. It only works by ignoring the large regions of the world which will become unlivable, or nearly so, and the fact that those regions are home to billions of people. Those people won't just lay down and die, so the areas that are still livable -- and maybe even more comfortable! -- with warmer temperatures are going to have to deal with the resulting refugee flood, and the wars caused by this vast population upheaval and relocation.

But, yeah, if you ignore all the negative effects and focus only on the potentially good ones, you can convince yourself it'll be a good thing. SMDH.

I see from the comments that we've hit a new stage in climate change denialism.

Stage 1: Denial of warming: Denying that the climate is changing at all.
Stage 2: Denial of human influence: Admitting the climate is changing but denying that humans are causing it.
Stage 3: Denial of impact: Admitting human causation, but claiming the impact will be insignificant.
Stage 4: Denial of solutions: Admitting that it's real, we're causing it and that it will be significant, but denying that there is anything we can do about it.
Stage 5: Denial of timeliness: Admitting that we could have done something about it, but now it's too late.
And now, Stage 6: Denial of negative impacts: Admitting that it's real, and significant, and that maybe we could do something, but trying to spin it as beneficial.

What system component would enforce those restrictions? Unless Google modified Linux to add an entirely new access control scheme it wouldn't be the kernel, which would make the sandboxing much easier to break out of.

But that's not the biggest problem with your suggestion. The biggest problem is that users cannot be trusted to make complex security decisions, which your toggles definitely would be. That sounds condescending, I know, but it's backed up by a vast amount of experience and evidence. You have to keep in mind that approximately all of the three billion Android users know nothing about computing, nothing about security, and less than nothing about computer security.

Obviously. That's not the point I was addressing.

People have much higher expectations of mobile security. Also, most mobile phone users have never used any desktop/laptop, so they aren't even aware of the very low bar for security expectations set by desktop OSes.

Anybody else ever play You Don't Know Jack with three other people? I think that was the first really clean and comprehensible party quiz game, and a YDKJ title seems like it would be a good fit here.

Pretty much any cellphone can now do a decent imitation of a Wiimote (besides the sensors, you could also use camera data) and it would also be hilarious to see people accidentally chuck their phones across the room while bowling.

Mozilla keeps thinking that they can make Firefox popular without the nerds somehow. But all the shit that makes it better than other browsers is nerd shit, so they need nerds to advocate for it, teach other users how to use those features, etc. Meanwhile they seem to actually be trying to alienate us. Just like in the movie, here it the pulse, and here is their finger, far from the pulse, jammed up their ass. Pretzel?

You are correct, they absolutely, positively do not have a flying car. They have a drone that comes out of a cybervan. And it's six-wheeled to boot, which would be cool in an off road vehicle but absolutely sucks on pavement. I did not bother to look up whether it has rear steering because IDGAF about it even if it does, even though that would be kind of neat. The rest of it is dumb.

I think BeauHD is a dipshit for posting this dupe