I meant the side that is not visible from Earth, yes; it is traditionally called the "dark side" in mainstream English, because language is weird sometimes. This nomenclature is admittedly rather counterintuitive, and "far side" is more clear and therefore better terminology and is thus the wording that I ideally should have used. Sorry for any confusion.

If they want us to try their coin, they should hand out some free samples.

Currently rated "overwhelmingly negative" on Steam. I've never seen that before.

The AI was trying to sucker people into betting on different horses than it did.

Here's a good place to queue up my favorite quote"

"You're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts."

And in case you haven't noticed, the media doesn't thrive on telling people something's fine. The thrive on "oh shit" stories.

lol!

for the crew that's about to take a ride.

Or do I have my spaceships mixed up?

I'm always surprised to find out how many militias already have an embedded FBI agent, and how many hillbilly terrorists adopt an accomplice who turns out to be an agent.

Because a certain political party doesn't have a platform, and thus need a boogey man to run against.

Even if it's just made up.

Uh... ignore the scaremongering politicians and search for "us crime rate by year".

Are you saying the government only gets bigger under Democrats?

Yeah, we call this one Big Meat.

That would be pointless, though.

Doing something that another country has already done long ago, doesn't impress anyone. If they want to be perceived as advanced leaders in scientific research, they have to do something that has NOT already been done decades ago by other countries, especially hated Western countries.

If there were any conceivable way they could send a manned mission to Mars, that's what they'd be doing. The dark side of the moon, is the loftiest space-exploration goal they thought they had any realistic chance of achieving.

> Whatever happened to the goal of Windows 10 being the last version of Windows

That was never intended to actually be true. They said that because IT people with actual discernment were looking at Windows Ten and going "Eh, this version is pants, I think we're gonna stick with Seven for now and see if Microsoft can get their act together for the *next* release." And that would be a disaster, because then they (and more importantly their companies) might not pay Microsoft any money for upgrade licenses for Ten.

Once just about everyone who ever pays for software upgrades let go of Seven and upgraded, the "Ten is the last version" line was promptly dropped, because it was no longer needed.

There is one significant way in which Eleven is better than Ten: the "is your PC ready for the upgrade" check is significantly more realistic about system requirements. Ten will happily install on a system with 8 GB of RAM, which is less than a quarter of what is needed to run it at an even vaguely acceptable level of performance, and it doesn't even *warn* you that there might be a problem. The result, is that the system can't be used for anything because it's too busy swapping, because the core of the OS doesn't fit in physical RAM, let alone any applications (and the Eight/Ten/Eleven virtual memory subsystem is even more pants than the NT/XP/Vista/Seven one). Eleven doesn't have this problem: it actually tells you your PC isn't good enough.

I still say Seven is the best operating system Microsoft has ever produced. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if it ends up being the best one Microsoft *will* ever produce.

WhatsApp is owned by the same company as Facebook.

There has never been another company in the entire history of the Earth, that has been caught violating its own stated privacy policy and doing things with user data that it had specifically promised *not* to do, more times than this company.

I'm not saying they're the most evil company ever. They're not. There have been companies that have done worse things to people. Like, participating in genocide, for example. And there are companies that are in bed with totalitarian governments and directly exploit user data for Orwellian surveillance purposes (*cough* ByteDance *cough*). Which is not great.

But when we're talking specifically about whether the company will distribute your data to various third parties after promising that they wouldn't do that, *nobody* has ever had a worse track record for that, than Facebook/Meta. In particular, if a company comes along and offers them money for some user data, for marketing purposes, the only reason the deal would ever break down would be if they don't offer *enough* money. A little thing like "our privacy policy says we won't do that" would never get in the way.