I can see the living room TV from my kitchen and, despite it annoying my wife, I often watch from the kitchen. It's 50 inches or so, 4k with supposed HDR (8 bit dithering and 350 nit peak brightness doesn't count as HDR Visio! Lying pricks). The other night, I was standing there thinking about how the apparent size of this 50" TV was noticeably less than that of the 27" 2k monitor on my desktop, because I sit so much closer to the monitor.

And that's what all this comes down to - how close are you to the TV? If you're 20-30 feet away, the resolution doesn't matter as much. When I stand in my kitchen, I may as well be looking at a 2K TV. BUT! When I'm sitting with my wife in the living room, it absolutely does matter. At that distance, I can absolutely see the difference between 2 and 4K. I'd probably see that even better if I could lower it a bit to a proper viewing angle, which is part of the reason I watch while standing up in the kitchen. Though that isn't really relevant here.

Is she or is she not too fat to pass through herself? And why has no one yet raised this question?

Lots of very wealthy people work 60-80 hour weeks. Are these startups compensating these workers commensurate with the work? Are they looking at the potential of being millionaires once the startup has started up? Are they already making 5 figures a month?

Without that information, this article is little more than propaganda.

Capitalism doesn't create cartels, people try to cheat under any system. What you're saying is that there has been a regulatory failure that has allowed collusion to occur. But your evidence for this appears to be that regulators have successfully done their jobs, stopped the collusion and price-fixing, and have punished the offenders.

So... are you complaining that the cases aren't being prosecuted fast enough?

Okay, what I heard there was "turning off things that are already working and money we don't have to replace them."

Biden's family gets involved. Result? They get rich.
Trump's family gets involved. Result? Peace.

Sounds like you need to vote in a new Public Utilities Commission, or whatever it's called there.

The Guardian is a propaganda rag. Why not just link the actual story from the local news station instead of sh-tty re-reporting from a rag not fit to wipe dirty asses?

Here's a version of that link that works: https://www.wbaltv.com/article...

If the cops look at the pic and tell the student he's holding a gun, then I guess the "AI" not in use is, "Any Intelligence".

You missed the all-important one:
3) able to pay for taking a test.

Listen harder next time?

I think it means you paid someone to say you know how to use their product.
Which has always sounded like a scam to me.

As I see it, they should make taking these certification tests free or very cheap. As it stands, they really only test one's ability to pay to take a stupid test. But, by making them expensive, they can lock people into their ecosystem.

I would support a DoJ investigation into Cisco for anti-competitive behavior with their damn certs.

Adobe still hasn't written a secure tool for reading PDFs. They invented the format 33 years ago.

Isn't that more like the inverse of what's being described? Jevon's "paradox" is that for some things increased efficiency increases demand. I don't really see that as paradoxical given that he was seeing increased efficiency bringing lower costs and increased utility, which we can expect will increase demand.

What's happening here just sounds like efficiencies of scale. High fixed costs are defrayed by spreading them out among more customers.

They don't, and whether or not they are depends entirely on what State you're talking about. In my State, it doesn't work like that.