The US government defaulted in 1934, and again in 1971.

Agreed. This is a once-in-a-lifetime deal for the US. They get to write off old inventory. They get to see how one of their two primary adversaries fare against those weapon systems. They get to degrade the capabilities of said adversary by pointing out targets to Ukrainian forces. They get to observe the new drone warfare paradigm as it evolves. And all while never putting American troops in harm's way. It's a win-win for Ukraine, who gets to punch way above their weight.

Wait, what?

If the operator of the windmills and the peaker plants are competitors, why would the windmill operator give up revenue to benefit the peaker plants?

If they're not competitors (e.g. in the same company), shutting down cheap power generation in favor of more expensive power generation would decrease profit, not maximize it.

I can't think of any reasonable structure in which your theory could work. What am I missing?

I should mention that although I'm an Android engineer, I don't have any significant contact with RISC-V work. The above is my interpretation of the public comments, in light of what I do know about the state of RISC-V and the way the Android ecosystem is structured and works.

It's because RISC-V is currently fragmented. Not the base ISA, but the base ISA isn't enough to build a device, and there are a lot of divergent extensions.

That wasn't a problem when RISC-V was only theoretical, but now that companies are working towards actual devices, having the "common" RISC-V support in the Android Common Kernel was a hindrance, not a help. The expectation is that over the course of a few years the RISC-V Android ecosystem will coalesce and settle on a common set of extensions to the ISA and it will then be possible to standardize the RISC-V support in ACK. Until then, it's better if ACK doesn't have any RISC-V support so chip vendors and OEMs can straightforwardly patch in what they need.

That doesn't make sense.

Android devices in China are not Google Play devices (can't be, really, thanks to the Great Firewall), so the device makers are not obligated to use the Android Common Kernel -- or anything else. They're free to take the open source and build whatever they like. Removing RISC-V support from ACK does exactly nothing to hinder their ability to build and deploy RISC-V devices. If they want to stick with Google's kernel for whatever reason, they can simply reapply the patches that were removed. If they want something else, they can do that.

The EU isn't a country fwiw.

Yeah, it probably will go that way, but it'll take longer than it should because PV is operating at a significant disadvantage due to coal plants free-riding on the environment. In the language of economists, pollution -- including CO2 -- is an externaity, a cost that is borne by a third party not part of the economic transaction. In this case, the parties in the transaction are the power plant operator and whoever buys their power, and the external third party is everyone else who has to cover the healthcare and climate impact costs of that transaction.

The EPA can't do it, but we really should implement a carbon tax to "internalize" (again, the economic term) the CO2 emission externality, so that whoever is emitting the CO2 has to include that cost in their operations, and of course pass it on to whoever buys it. With a carbon tax, the estimated future cost of climate change would be priced into every carbon-emitting process, creating a level playing field against carbon-reduced or carbon-free processes.

Without that, coal has an enormous built-in advantage. I expect that renewables will eventually win anyway, but it's going to take longer and create greater climate-change impact than necessary.

Ideally, we should also internalize other externalities, such as particulate pollution which increases healthcare costs. Make sure everyone is paying the full and accurate cost of their actions, then let the market optimize the outcome. But, one thing at a time.

More seriously, I wonder what sort of protocol they're using. I guess they could just use standard protocols, but with a freaking huge ACK window, but it seems more likely they'd use extensive FEC to reduce effective bit errors to extremely low rates, since NAKing and retransmitting corrupted packets would be incredibly slow. Or maybe that's okay. As long as they're only transmitting stored data which can be retransmitted a half hour later if needed, it might be fine to use simple error detection with retries. Dunno. This would be a fascinating problem to solve.

This ain't gonna work for FPS games... ping times of 25 minutes!

Where does Wikipedia say that wind and solar are the entire solution to global warming?

It only "failed" in the sense that it wasn't able to keep up economically with the US. That's not the same as failing, though.

I don't see any problem with requiring companies to preserve messages related to an investigation after they've been informed that an investigation is happening.

ok. Corporations are required to keep records.

If the government is going after them in a "fishing expedition", then they have expensive lawyers who should complain about it to a judge. That's why we have a judge.

Societies are inherently social. It's right there in the name; there's no getting around it. From how your parents came together, to your employment, to professional and personal organizations, to recreational activities: anytime you have more than one person, it's social (no matter how much some of us may wish otherwise).

You know what isn't social? Having a physical barrier that isolates you from others. So while Apple will tout the device's AR capabilities, show us ads with fathers participating in birthday parties while wearing the headset, and slap some creepy eyes on the outside that fail to make eye contact, so far as everyone around you is concerned you're just wearing a VR headset. The world doesn't care that you say you can see it, it can't really see you because you made a choice to physically separate yourself. You're distant. You're disconnected. You're removed. You're not present in the moment, no matter how much you insist to the contrary. And that's fine when you're at home playing games or watching a movie by yourself, but it's a really tough sell out in the rest of the world where things are social.

I'm excited for a future where prescription glasses have this stuff baked in. I'd love additive experiences like seeing the names of people floating over their heads, a map HUD that's with me for both the drive to the airport and the walk to my gate inside, distance traveled and heart rate when I'm out biking or running, the option to see more detailed information about the history of items in a museum, realtime translations for foreign languages, and so on. In each of those use cases I could see it being vastly superior to a smartphone, but so long as this technology has the effect of removing me from my surroundings in the eyes of everyone around me, it has no place out in society. My smartphone will suffice.