I bought an ASUS ROG Stryx Scar two years ago for a little over 2K euro, AMD Ryzen 5900HX with 2 M.2 slots and the USB-C 3.1 2nd gen port does support 4K HDMI with a Vention USB hub I bought for a couple of tenners. (In device manager the monitor seems to be directly connected to the NVidea 3070 mobile in there). With the included HDMI port you can drive 2 external 4k monitors. Don't know if those specs are good enough for you but they are for me :P It doesn't have soldered RAM, though and I'm glad for that because the 64 GB I have in there now helps very well with my professional ICT work and it doesn't break the bank.

Unless you're willing to do it the 'rapid development' and 'blow up often' style... How much (increasingly expensive) problem seeking do you do vs. finding the problems in situ 'once' and then make sure you have fixed them in the next iteration? Both ways cost money. NASA or. SpaceX?
The big question is: did they foresee the possibility of some scraps to find the problems and have the money for it? Else their business model is flawed and that can lead to much more unpleasant consequences from grumpy investors to unwanted 'chapter' requests.
Also, if they're using third party equipment (like that power supply) shouldn't those come with some specifications for operation / guaranties? Or did they do a version of 'let's see if an IPad works on the ISS and if it does... Yay!'.

Tell that to about every other satellite internet provider except Starlink and they will tell you the amount of money they rake in. Satellite internet is/used to be outrageously expensive and slow as molasses running through an Alaskan town in winter. And with horrendous latency to boot. It's meant to be reliable and available at 'impossible' locations and is mostly based on high-altitude satellites because you don't need a metric shit-tonne of 'em. The Musk company is the exception, not the norm.

Those optical amplifiers have to be fed with a power source. And usually that means a 'copper' line runs alongside the fiber or may even be part of the same cable, at least for the long ones between backbone nodes.

Then we make it a real name + nation statehood based unique ID must be known and only known by the platform owners and used solely (punishable by law) to ban and keep banned bad behaving individuals. The database of said IDs should be protected by your nations privacy laws and in case of a data breach, the same rules should apply as with medical/banking records etc. Full disclosure required and organization/company fines if an audit finds protective measurements were insufficient. You can provide said ID using the same government tools that make it able to do your taxes, watch your medical and banking records... if your nation state provides such tools. If your nation state doesn't have said laws or provides such tools I feel sorry for you and you should lobby your local politicians to care more for its citizens privacy and proper use of private data.

In the EU we have a directive (the WEEE) that states all e-waste must be recycled. A few exapmles where I live: electronics retailers have to accept a comparable old/defect appliance i8n return, that the customer wants to have recycled, at a new sale at no extra charge and municipalities have free turn-in e-waste collection stations as part of their garbage disposal program.

For as long as humans exist we are already raising entities that, generally, would eventually become smarter than us: our children. And parenting was always a process that was learned along the way, conclusions drawn in hindsight.

Why should it now need to be different? We're far off from a singularity in my opinion. AI might be very good at specific tasks (and everything the most advanced AI currently do is still very specific IMHO), It's still no match for GI, i.e. a single human brain.

Just don't let AI be in charge of choices we might regret ourselves, if we chose wrongly. Just like we won't give children.responsibilities they are not yet up to.

For every consumer that does care, there are dozens that don't. Do not fool yourself with the thought that when you make sound decisions with your wallet, almost everyone else does as well.

Every company needs their goods be sold and thus a base of customers to survive. If your company implements ethical standards and your competition does not, you miss out on the 'horde' of customers that don't care, just want to consume. Sometimes that's a disadvantage a company can overcome. Most times the ethical company will go bankrupt. That's a flaw in unregulated capitalism and unfortunately in instances where competition is fierce you always see a race to the bottom with very big companies making maximum profit as short term as possible for their shareholders and, if you're lucky, a few very small 'ethical', 'craft', 'local' etc. companies in the margins.

Either, 'govern' (regulate) the companies or 'govern' (force educate) the consumer base.. Your choice. The default option is also still available of course: let it all go to hell.

Small addendum on my previous text:
Apple, Amazon. Tomato, tomato.

That's up for debate and depends on the kind of political and economic ideologies you adhere to. At least, from your statements I can defer our definitions of "applicable laws", "taxes", "avoidance" and "morality" are very different.

Even the capitalist in me (* I'm slightly left leaning for a Western European) cringes when I read stories like these and learn what some wealthy individuals and companies get away with.
Capitalism is not about corrupting the markets you sell on to satisfy the cravings of your short-term investors. Misusing tax loopholes is a way to profits which many of us consider to be unnatural (and I'm definitely one of them). Apple could do it on this massive scale because they're a large company and have the judicial clout and political influence to get away with it... up to now. Like monopolistic behaviour, it's something large, established companies can pull off because they can hire the accountants, lawyers and lobbyists to search for it and keep it in place, while smaller companies can't.

Tax avoidance == anti-capitalist.

And a large part of that is because Putler stopped delivering cheap fossil fuels and we now have to import by ship from 'Murica .instead of using cheaper transport media like pipelines.

As far as I can find in sect 3.1 of executive order 13526, the only people / functions that are allowed to declassify information are (in order)
-The person that originally classified the data, if he's still in function and he still has the original authority to classify said information.
-The successor of said person and he has to have the original authority to classify the information as well.
-The supervisor of said person, or its successor and he also has to have the original authority to classify the information.
-The director of National Intelligence, with respect to the Intelligence community, after consulting the head of the department the classified information came from.

The president is not mentioned in this list. He is the top person that delegates (including to himself, I assume) the original right to classify information (and designate others to pass on those rights) but he is not mentioned as a person that can declassify all classified information...

Historically, a bicycle with a motor actually is called a moped or scooter. Those are still legally 'bikes', usually using bike infrastructure. A motor cycle is a two wheeled legally more or less car-like vehicle which is allowed to go places only cars can go, like motorways.

Updating the base operating software and standard features is something completely different from side-loading or (app-shop) installing 3rd party software. The first is a software update, end-users can't very much do without. The other is a consumer choice. No where in the original article/proposal it's assumed manufacturers have to shield clients for their use of 3rd party software. Don't assume legislators don't know the difference (and if you think they can't, I'd like to see some 'exceptional' evidence regarding such claims).

Of course, that's fine. It just means you (as a manufacturer) are required to write bug-free software and maintain all external protocols used over the legal* lifetime of the device. Some software for long-maintenance hardware used to be written in that way, then burned into ROM, ergo, software updates were excluded from the start. Unless a major oopsie was found in which case it meant swapping out ROMs. Whether those costs then could be recuperated was and still is, a matter of warranty.

*which may be a lot longer than this 5 years proposal - and there are European countries requiring manufacturers a reasonable use of life for certain categories of devices. For example, here in the Netherlands, there have been court cases won by consumers where a manufacturer was required to pay (part of) the repair bill, depending on the 'intended expected lifetime' of the device, its standard warranty and its legal warranty, even about 10 years after date of sale.