One can hope.

But I'm maybe weird, but where is the Vulture Capitalists' (VC's) money going? This should be HIGHLY concerning.

Have you not seen Adam Savage's forearm tattoo?

"...Investors now care about profitability rather than growth..."
This is merely the end-stage of Cory Doctorow's Enshitification Cycle of business:
First, the company blows money on attracting customers, at the expense of vendors/suppliers and shareholders.
Then it blows money attracting vendors/suppliers. at the expense of customers and shareholders.
Finally, the permanent stage is paying shareholders at the expense of customers and vendors/suppliers.

Hollywood, and specifically, streaming Hollywood has simply reached the final stage. Praise* shareholders, amen.

*Praise, in the form of money.

https://m.slashdot.org/story/1...

Which leads to: https://stevelosh.com/blog/201...

And that leads to the absolutely BRILLIANT article:
https://www.americanscientist....

URLs 2 and 3 have concrete suggestions.

I will add two more: write--or more importantly, EDIT--with your reader in mind.
Never assume your reader knows already. Explain your acronyms, footnote your assumptions, diagrams speak volumes.

I think we may need to remember that the 747 was a pre-ETOPS design, IIRC the wing was initially the 707's. All in all, it's kind of a miracle it lasted this long.

I came to make the Google "do no evil" joke (check) but this is brilliant.

May I respectfully point out the possibility that DoD deliberately gave their approval to get that weaponization off US soil? IIRC, there was a SoKo company demonstrating an automated machine gun not too long ago. Not merely remote-controlled, but also self-controlled. I am not apologizing for them wanting automated weapons or even a fire-on-warning retaliation system, the NorK's are tough neighbors and both countries are in an upward-tension spiral.

But maybe this was the plan? Have the good, moral, upright Bostonians make hollow, meaningless pledges to god, virtue, and the proles. Then have the home-office put the IP into ED-209's?

Disclaimer: I know conspiracies are hard. I think greed and stupidity work as explainers for this theory.

Did you miss the part about "adversarial attack"? The listeners-we're-trying-confound will always be one step behind the masking application. AFAIK the pool of "adversarial" is infinite, and defense needn't be perfect. Masking merely needs to f-up just enough to confound the listeners' own guesses of what's coming next. Like modding just a tiny % of pixels to make images of guns get classified as bananas, we only need to confound a fraction of the speech to destroy the algo's ability to classify it.

I remain hopeful, so long as I can load this application in it's entirety, audit the code if I want to, and run it on an air-gapped device. You're side of the argument will probably prevail when one or all of those is defeated by Giant Company buying up this nifty new tech,

Um fellas, 12.3 deletes Python 2 without installing a replacement. Their only warning is to bother your developers.

Iâ(TM)ve locked out all upgrades on my little toy Mini server until my most important application finds a fix.

And yes, I know about Brew.

As an IMAX projectionist (at the time) I saw the Showscan demo at the Chuck E. Cheese test theater in Dallas. ('87, IIRC) There is nothing, literally no cinematic effect or experience before or since, that knocked my socks off like that short film. I was in a room full of IMAX theater folks and the collective gasp at the reveal was louder than the sound effects. We're approaching 40 years later and I can still recall the mind-bending experience of that show. (Chuck E, Cheese was the launch-partner, though I'm not sure any theaters other than this one were built.)

If Magi is even 1/10th as good as Showscan, y'all need to get yer butts in those seats right now.

Douglas Trumbull was every bit that smart; listen to him rattling off the facts in the Magi video: that's just the way he talked. My brief conversation with him I was so star-struck I could hardly speak, let alone remember all that he said. Not having his contribution to the world anymore is truly sad.

Take this event as a reminder of how temporary everything is, and go make your appreciation known. Let the creators know they've moved you, let your friends know you like them, let your family know you love them. But go see a Magi show.

First off, SpaceX and the commercial sector benefit from NASA publishing everything they do. So let's agree they got a few billion in R&D for free.*

When it comes to suits: NASA's actually figuring out how to do it. The commercial folks just mooch, cherry picking what they want and don't. So the flight suits only have to make one trip? No problem, latex-coated denim seems just fine. On the surface-capable suits, NASA's now having to figure out how to minimize exposure to surface materials. This is so ridiculously non-trivial that everyone's probably sitting on the edge of their seats waiting to see how they solve it. Insiders can comment, but I'm guessing Russia and China included in that "wait and steal" plan. Why spend money when the USians will do it?

So before we equate Jeffy or Elon risking their cheap minions in a pair of Carhartt's, NASA's very extreme risk-aversion means their suits (and ships, and...) are built to some extreme standards.** Let's all shut up for a sec and see what they come up with.

Time to get something straight: NASA's gig is managing the highest-performance, tightest-tolerance, widest-scale systems ever attempted by our species. The actual space stuff--the roar and zoom and floaty stuff and the "one small step"--are all side-effects.

* I'd concede that all they learned in some cases was how not to do it.
** As in the case of the shuttle's payload bay: extremely stupid standards, thanks USAF.

OMG Puls4r you're so much smarter than the tens-of-thousands of people who've spent millions of person-hours' lifespan on this project! Not one of them has ever heard of this "mud" of which you speak, thank you so much! The stockholders of Goodyear owe you a huge debt for saving them wasting another cent on this nightmare. And gawd knows no one at NASA, Goodyear, or even in Ohio (Glen Research Center) ever thought to try this on sand! It amazes me, how they could've missed this. BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD, you idiots.

As for Metl's vaporware: obvs they're intending it for the road bikers, because they demo'd their flagship product on a road bike.

Mod me to hell, I don't care. I'm just tired of all of us coming on here thinking we've found the achilles' heel. It's the individuation of bullshit "Great Man Theory" since that's getting pretty threadbare on the front end. If one can't be the sole inventor anymore, then to be the one critic who calls out the emperor's new clothes.

From Doctorow's Pluralistic newsletter, I heard about Naked Capitalism's take on this and it's 180 from WSJ. (Which is pretty obvious.) Ant (and Jack Ma's entire fortune) is the Chinese equivalent of US's payday lenders, a predatory business that extracts a lot of wealth from the poor. Stopping this IPO could be seen as a global positive by any lights other than the Borkian "consumer harm" standard we now live by.

But IANEconomist, I'll listen to those in the know who care to comment.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.co...

PopMech's editorial standards are barely above Beyond 2000's. I think the check has to be made out to "cash." Could we wait for this story to come from Aviation Week and Space Technology?

It is my understanding that the change from CFC to HFA was as much a patent-refresh as it was an environmentally sound move. IIRC the folks working to eliminate CFC's for their harm to the ozone layer were perfectly happy to ignore their use in inhalers. The amount was too small to worry about. But hey, big pharma gets to reclaim their primacy in the market by making the switch and greenwash it too: win win.

Frankly, I don't give a damn. The carbon footprint for an emergency room visit is significantly worse than my little inhaler.

Ok, here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Oh, wait, that doesn't address the subject of your protest, it offers a moral explanation for your protestation.