> The software had a built-in limit of 200 bot detection features. The enlarged file contained more than 200 entries. The software crashed when it encountered the unexpected file size.

A built in limit is:

if ( rule_count > 200 )
    log_urgent('rule count exceeded')
    break
else
    rule_count++
    process_rule

This sounds like it did not have a built-in limit but rather walked off the end of an array or something when the count went over 200.

I heard earlier today that a court has determined that since governments are using all of this data, including license plates, that a FoIA request for all of the license plate data gathered from Flock in a city area for a range of dates was valid.

They want to have a power advantage over their serfs but turning their advantage into a burden changes that dynamic. Something to look into for those so inclined.

We seem to be well past the point of being able to expect them to follow the Law or "do the right thing".

> I see no reason why the government shouldn't be allowed to buy the same data that jim-bob the farmer can purchase.

Jim-bob is likely to face some serious problems if he smashes down your door and drags you away in a pre-dawn raid.

The IRS people get a promotion.

This is why the Constitution places strict limits on the actions of government agents.

(in its original interpretation)

Here I am about to think "damn, people losing their jobs to AI" and then I realize its the "pizza in 4-easy payments" people.

They should probably go all-in on AI as soon as possible. For their investors' sake.

OK, that was pretty funny. +1.

We need BYD in canada. Fuck american cars, unloyal american car companies and all their stupid fascist BS, government and culture. Produce BYD cars instead. I want my 9k-19k ev please. Would be finally worth ditching the beater for.

Bitcoin relies entirely on SHA256 ASIC's for hashing and they typically need replacing every year or two because more efficient models come out making the old ones unprofitable, especially at halvings. Due to the RoI and first-mover advantage the profitable ones are very expensive.

If you want to heat your home with proof-of-work, use a coin that uses RandomX or some other deliberately ASIC-resistant algorithm (usually CPU mining).

You can pool mine on an old CPU and still get a few pennies for your efforts, though if you want to invest in an EPYC and have other uses for it (maybe you have work jobs to run during the day and want more heat on cold nights) it could actually be profitable.

Resistive electric heating is still a very expensive way to heat, though some people don't have better options. There's a development near where I am that was built shortly after Nixon announced Project Independence and every house (cold climate) has wall-to-wall electric baseboard heating.

At least the well off have something to give for xmas, or just to look cool in.

Would you rather pay a tariff's cost or pay more for products produced domestically? We will see how every company deals with this.

Tariffs are often presented as a shield for domestic industries, but economically they are counterintuitive: by limiting foreign competition, they reduce the pressure on local companies to innovate, improve efficiency, or lower costs. Without that competitive drive, businesses can stagnate, producing inferior goods and services while charging higher prices. The irony is that the domestic consumers tariffs are meant to protect end up paying more for worse products, while the broader economy loses out on the dynamism and progress that open competition usually sparks.

Suddenly reshaping supply chains to respond to tariffs carries significant risks that ripple across the economy. Companies may be forced to abandon established, efficient networks in favor of hastily arranged alternatives, which often means higher costs, logistical bottlenecks, and reduced reliability. These abrupt shifts can disrupt production schedules, strain relationships with long-term suppliers, and erode quality control. Worse, the uncertainty discourages investment in long-term innovation, as firms divert resources to short-term survival.

When unemployment is already low, suddenly finding enough workers to reconfigure supply chains in response to tariffs becomes nearly impossible without driving up labor costs. Firms must compete for scarce talent, often retraining or relocating employees, which adds further expense and delays. At the same time, the abrupt shift discards sunk costs. Prior investments in established supplier relationships, infrastructure, and logistics are thrown out before they would have been depreciated. These wasted resources are replaced by new costs for recruitment, training, and building fresh networks, all of which inevitably flow into higher prices for consumers. In effect, tariffs don’t just disrupt trade; they force companies to burn past investments while layering on new inefficiencies that must show up in the prices of goods.

It'll be at least half of that in ten years.

The Zoomers have no interest in cable TV.

> Why not just build the proper infrastructure with what we know works?

I tried to do this locally. The government allows the pole owner (electric or telephone usually) to charge $50/mo/pole to the startup that wishes to hang wires.

The owner pays $5/mo in property taxes to the town.

There are exceptions for large corporations that are in the state's good graces.

It's just to keep competition limited to the cartel.

Short answer: corrupt government.