A friend recently did a return trip Brisbane to Sydney in a Tesla model Y and had nothing but good things to say about the journey. Having a couple of kids meant they had more stops than needed for charging. All that EV related issues that matters when you're heading to the outback are irrelevant when you're travelling along the populated east coast. Horses for courses, EVs can't replaced everything as they currently stand.

Imagine if you could have them out of sight and hearing, like, say, 10 miles or more offshore. Crazy idea I know.

I would expect all of these streaming services are capturing hardware related data include device type, serial number, and MAC address, and gateway, and relating this to your account. The issue might arise if you never use it at your home and connect it to the same gateway that all your other devices use, however with no other parameters changing this may be an allowed exception, or maybe you might receive a questionnaire to explain why...

This is how it works in Australia, and it's working fine. Solar is much cheaper here to install though, my 12kW system with 10kW inverter was about $16k after government rebate (a few $k) - which the installers manage for you and you don't do or see anything related.

Government subsidies also support low % loans (3% currently) for 100% of the solar install cost, and my electricity savings from solar are well above what the solar loan is costing per month.

USA financial regulations seem to have a lot more leniency for shenanigans to occur...

What seems to be a major point for our org is that by moving an entire system from shared IT owned infrastructure to the cloud the business now gets to see - and pay full TCO of - whatever it is they're using - no more hidden costs absorbed by IT in the datacentre and other related areas. That gives them much more information about the usefulness of their products and the cost to run and replace them.

Because it cost less to just:

1. give everyone lunch than administrate who is entitled to a free lunch and who isn't;

2. pay less in security/hospital/damages as there are less kids bullied due to economic factors.

Take a step back and look holistically at more than just a single activity, and you'll find a massive web of interconnectedness where a small change in one thing can have a significant cost saving elsewhere.

My solar system shows how much used - 42.44kWh on Saturday, 48.04kWh Sunday. An average of 2kW/h per home isn't that far off reality. We're in summer in Australia so there's a couple of ACs running 24/7, plus occasional spikes as other things turn on. Solar covers about half of our usage.

This was in the complaint:

So it's not a first amendment violation but another restriction that is under contention.

I cannot find any references to the First Amendment in the email sent to Whistleblower Aid by the person in this article. I did find this summary:

I would imagine this restriction on her activities is what she's contesting, whether her contract with Harvard means can enforce this, and whether whistleblower protections remove this restriction.

There is a time and place for hot spotting off your phone, and letting Steam reauthenticate so you can play offline again is definitely one of them.

I saw our most recent cloud migration data and the vast majority has been to AWS, even with a lot of Microsoft licences under maintenance that could defray the cost.

Why?

The simplest reason I can deduce is that under AWS the TCO of the entire service stack is easily chargeable to the client, whereas under Azure you would have some hybrid-licensed infrastructure with discounted pricing that may support several different customers - and therefore be a nightmare to recover.

Thanks for highlighting that, I'll copy the relevant part about perjury:

I've italicised the relevant part to 'under penalty of perjury', which therefore means the preceding parts of the act - primarily that the material is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity - is not under penalty of perjury. IIRC there were some DMCA claims that were thrown out as the submitting organisation was not authorised to act on behalf of the copyright holder.

Large chunks of the article discuss why having a full PC running as a client is less desirable, including local data storage and OS maintenance for the client hardware.

No need to worry about hardware seizure or required bootup & login at airports, no worrying about stolen devices. Essentially no care if ex-employees don't return one of these devices - their cloud access has already been removed and there's no local data storage to wipe. Replacements on breakage are simple - not the multi-hour process our company currently has with licence movements and software re-installs, old device wiping, and managing and documenting secure disposal. It could also assist with our ad-hoc requirements for high end specialist devices, currently needing to provide an expensive custom build whereas we are now looking at cloud PCs for use only as needed, and provisioning a much thick client PC otherwise.

Sure there's many use cases where this solution may not be a good fit, but there's certainly some scope where it would be excellent.

It is soooo much easier to just increase your fuel taxes, which obviously target ICE vehicles.

I just wish they'd note the ads I skip ASAP and stop showing them to me. At least give me some new content after I've skipped something half a dozen times.