>Of course the VTOL development division can be a completely discrete
>entity from the commercial jet manufacturing side of the business.

[nods]

Yes, ind of like they separate the doors and airframes now . . .

you're both halfway there.

you strap the toast *to* the cat, and it not only can't land, thus elevating, but spins, generating free energy!

which phone has that feature? I've been asking for biometrics distress features for a really, really long time.

Actually, it doesn't. Nothing in the username field has anything to do with identity. I can enter whatever I want there, or where it is an e-mail I can just enter whatever I want followed by @gmail.com once I've registered that as my e-mail account.

These are not two differen things. There's no actual difference between "username+password" and "password1+password2".

Only because passwords are such a stupid idea.

I want my biometric devices to have a distress function. Like "if I try to log in with THIS finger, lock the device, encrypt the drive, flush all secrets and require a password to unlock it".

that.

And I'll be even blunter: the problem here seems to be the choice of a notoriously inefficient browser.

It's as if the folks that used to design word & excel to use a maxed out machine from three years in the future were brought back out of retirement to build a browser.

I've been putting 16gb+ into machines over a decade, but this 8gb m3 is doing just fine--but I'm no longer doing massive compile jobs, don't need VMs, and loathe video. I was leery, hashed it out heavily with other folks, and just grabbed the base. for that matter, I didn't even get the 15" model, and not over price, but because of weight; the 12" is just fine for one-handed use, and I could feel the difference.

there's no "giving Gingrich the credit", here.

there is no credit for the Arkansas balanced budget, as that is require by law (whether it works is a separate issue).

It is not *either* party that gets the credit for the balance; it came about by the competition to outdo the other. Left to themselves, *neither* party would do it--it's just that they'd spend on different things with borrowed money.

(actually, it's also hard to blame Gingrich for any budgets before '94, as his party had been in the minority nearly 50 years before he became speaker.)

I dunno.

but I suppose that, if you miss, you could take a mulligan . . . :)

hawk

It works.

Youtube is *much* better with the sound off!

(and even better with the monitor off, too . . .)

hawk

the contingency fee sounds unlikely.

Last I checked, they are only legal *at all* in the US, and a crime in all other Common Law jurisdictions.

And even in the US, they are illegal in divorces, save in California.

hawk, esq.

The bubble is bursting. These days, you need about a million views per month, every month to have a career on YouTube that actually pays the bills. For one person. If someone else does the video editing for you, add their cost.

A million views equals $5k. The kids realise that as soon as they don't live at home anymore. Pretty much all big YouTubers theses days make their money from Patreon, merchandise or sponsors.

The algorithm is likely optimising not for your pleasure but for ad revenue.

I see a TON of what is essentially an entire video of product placement, thinly veiled as "10 kitchen gadgets you need to know" or "12 new must-have tech gadgets", probably because a year ago I clicked on one or two of those before realising that they're not really interesting tech news but just full-out advertisement.

It keeps doing that even after I've clicked a ton of them away as "not interested".

It also keeps recommending me old videos from my subscribed channels that I've already watched. WTF?

The algorithm is shit these days.

Revenue is a bullshit number. YT keeps its actual profits (which is the number that matters) a secret.

I should be more specific, though. I mean "dying" not in the immediate sense, that's why I said slowly and it'll be around for years to come. But the time where everyone wanted to be a YouTuber because it's easy money are over. You need over a million views per month, every month to make YouTube a viable career choice these days.

Lots of even big channels these days are largely and openly finances by Patreon or sponsors. That means that they are no longer tied to YouTube in any meaningful way. Which means the platform is now interchangeable and the moment a competitor appears with similar numbers of users, the content creators can move elsewhere.

I was there when the dot-com bubble burst (for some reason I hear that in the voice of Elrond in my head, despite it's not actually that long ago, anyway) - I saw first hand how quickly your entire business can disappear when your only leg is "I'm very popular and have lots of users". The first company I worked for went from "we're in the top three" to "we're a subsidiary of someone else and btw 90% of you can go" in a week.

Again, no.

I do realize that most advertisement these days is not a direct incentive to buy but brand marketing.

What do you think does it do to your brand imagine if your brand keeps pissing me off? My ex insisted on using YT for music over loudspeakers and to do that from her phone (no adblocker). I'm a man, but if for whatever reason I ever find it necessary to buy women's period products, I know which brand I absolutely for 100% will completely avoid.

Gingrich served four years as speaker, to Clinton's eight.

it's 94-96, the end of Clinton's terms, and the beginning of Gingrich, when they were competing that produced the deals that actually balanced it. It did *not* happen while Clinton had Democratic majorities, nor did it happen later with Republican majorities under Bush.

There isn't any meaningful competition.

I've tried Rumble myself both as a viewer and as a content producer (very small channel), and it's just... not even in the same league, barely on the same continent.

But there's always a chance a competitor suddenly appears when some VCs with deep pockets decide it's worth the gamble.