Buying software has meant a purchase. It used to be that way. The copy you purchased was yours, you owned it. Not a revocable license. You were still restricted by copyright law from making copies the same as any other product (like a music CD).

In the US there is a city extending from Boston to DC. Big doesn't require monolithic. It'd be a good idea to get a section of the line city working so flaws can be iterated out/designs changed etc as sections are made. (i.e. assume it'll have unforeseen issues, and foreseen issues where the implemented solution isn't working as planned and so plan ahead for revision stages)
I'd like to see the giant desalinization design built and iterated. Once past the new design teething pains that'll have application world wide, including Southern CA.

As soon as '# of followers' became touted as a indication of political following, Twitter became bot infested.

The true number of bots was never disclosed.
There isn't an accurate public metric to judge the number of real users now or then, so the rest is guesswork.
As a public company, they had investment incentive to allow bots to the extent they could claim they're actual daily users. There may have been direct payments for that in addition to the blue check pay-offs. There may be other competing incentives that make eradicating them less the obvious choice it looks like now as a private company. (advertiser $ perhaps?) I don't think we know the actual user count, then or now. Lots of political grandstanding both times.

Douglas, Boeing's management was out maneuvered in the merger and engineer led decision making is long gone. That's been replaced by the 'suck shareholder value into our hands' corner cutting management Douglas was known for.

Meanwhile A separate question is how this flaw waivers/self certification/backroom deals? They're flying their new planes under the same cert as the '60s versions... which should be ok if operating/maintaining is the same. So... look at picture of the 737 original release version cockpit and a Max and see if you can find any differences... the crashes were about a system designed to move plane controls without pilot input or control to fake handling of the 60s aircraft - using sensors with no redundancy! (Douglas management made redundant safety critical systems a very expensive upgrade option - making everything an upgrade including basic safety increases profits dontcha know)
If I seem salty - that started after I looked into the causes of the Max issues. Just wow.

I remember the dishonesty being demonstrated then, the publisher block voting etc making a mockery of the awards. I remember the personal attacks and invective meant to cover that up.
Why did the Hugo's have any shred of credibility to lose, exactly? We've known this is who they are for years.

Definitely a method for excluding anyone ADHD, Aspergers, any sort of introvert etc. Or do you think it's looking for folks who're most likely to accept managerial abuse?

Stable coin enables small time crime, say reserve banking insiders responsible for facilitating trillions of dollars of white collar crime.

I will solve the most important problem. 'How can we lock these suckers in even harder, while making sure only our consultants can work on it?'

Yeah - you and those like you will use that to justify it won't you, fascist.

Approved censorship system must be in place or you're a criminal... for the children, and we'll call you a pedo...
No way that could go wrong from the start, right? Twitter files certainly didn't reveal any gov't demanded censorship turned out to be political... much...

Why isn't social manipulation being listed as the #1 problem? Is it because Meta & Google are just as big of a threat?

Ban it just as much as it's banned in China. Apparently they have a huge problem with what they're exporting here. Lets look at their reasons for that and believe them.

Sneaking in the license change, requiring the license with trap to get updates on old engines and then doing this?
You can't trust them not to just wait until the dust settles then adopt a boil the frog policy...

The system did operate, and the charge went off.
The full stack is built stronger/heavier than has been done before to work towards re-usability. It turns out it's unexpectedly robust and survived both the FTS charge and tumbling at speed for a time. Other launch vehicles would have crumpled, lost tank integrity and then exploded in a fireball if they tumbled like that even without the help of a flight termination system. SpaceX noted the need for a more destructive FTS right away. Do you have info pre-dating the launch indicating the FTS was too weak? I can't find any. It appears the consensus was it was fine and this outcome was a surprise.

The pad failure sprayed concrete at the booster at high speed. The release was hydraulic and the 2nd system was running until one of the debris damaged engines failed, so release wasn't possible. You could see it taken out in the video feed. The whole staging setup is different now.

They were prepared for flame erosion from the top, knew it'd be good enough on that front. They hadn't planned for a center puncture allowing high pressure rocket exhaust *under* the pad jacking it up from the bottom. That's what broke it up so fast, then shotgunned concrete at the booster. I can't find a prediction/warning of that type of failure from prior to the launch. I have no opinion about whether it should have been expected, but only see after-the-fact commentary. We haven't really been in 'new and exciting' land where good an bad real surprises happen since the early 60s. (early US space program had a difficult time at first). So much is new so fast I'm really surprised so much worked.