In USA, Aedes Aegypti is invasive and new, and it won't be missed. In most places in America, it's been here less than 30 years. Less than 5 years, where I live. I am confident that the ecology of 2026 is plenty compatible with the ecology of 2021.

If some obscure bird species that just moved in 5 years ago can't settle for eating the slower, bigger, less stealthy classical mosquito strains we'll have left, then it can fly back down to Central America where it recently came from.

Each state that gets money in a judgement or settlement, should use that money to make sure their public education system teaches kids how to block ads.

By 2030, I don't think anyone should be able to graduate high school in America, unless they've learned how to be ad-free (on screens under their control; obviously they won't gain superpowers to blank out billboards or the sides of buses).

FWIW, the first machine to scan a spectrogram and turn in back into sound was "pattern playback", created about a decade before Oram's synthesizer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Sure, although the Fourier transform itself dates back to 1822.

Of course all you need to create a spectrogram is a filterbank - a bunch of analog filters, and all you need to invert it is to add the frequency amplitudes back together.

This is all a bit irrelevant though since what Oram built was actually an analog musical synthesizer controlled by hand drawn (then optically scanned) film strips. No spectrogram involved at all. Similar analog scanning tech COULD have been used to scan a spectrogram and control addition of the corresponding frequencies, but this wasn't what she built.

https://www.daphneoram.org/ora...

That was equally true for previous generations, and all those generations had exceptions -- kids that were excited about it, despite the other kids not being interested. (I figure the majority of Slashdot may have been such exceptions.)

Do we have reason to suspect the current generation is a unique special case, the one generation where somehow all of them make an effort to never learn about computers?

I bet some of them are like some of us, a 2026 minority that we would have recognized 40 years ago.

Yeah, but you said:

> Daphne Oram pioneered technology for turning the informational sections of a spectrogram into sound back in 1958

You seem to want to make it sound like some discovery rather than just IFFT or just "add the sine waves back together". For sure what's trivial to do on a modern computer would have been more of a challenge using 1958 tech, but that's because of the tech, not because of the problem requiring some breakthrough "technology".

You also said "A spectrogram is basically a description of the sound", which while true also seems to be trying to make something very basic sound more mysterious than it is. It is just a frequency vs time plot of audio power. Add the frequencies back together and you've got your source audio back.

Dude, a spectrogram is just a rendered version of an FFT, and the "technology" for converting it back to audio is just an inverse FFT.

For that matter trained linguists can often read speech directly from spectrograms - you just need to recognize the formants, and there are other obvious clues such as fricatives (burst of high frequency noise), plosives (sudden onsets of speech energy from closed lips to open), etc.

This isn't some hi-tech research secret. A spectrogram is just a rendered version of an FFT, so it's gob-smackingly obvious you can convert it back to audio.

You cant [sic] be so dense that you don't realize that revenue puts an upper bound on profits, even if costs were zero.

Starlink revenue is 3x Space/Launch revenue.

Datacenter revenue (from Anthropic) is set to top Starlink.

That seems like the obvious compromise. You can drop POTS when you have FTTH provisioned to an address

I'd have thought both? They are reporting separately for their Starlink and Space/Launch segments, so presumably the Space segment is on paper selling launch services to the Starlink one. It's a cost for Starlink and revenue to Space.

But who's going to be the customer for frequent Starship launches? Starlink? Left hand sells product to right hand?

So then I guess they get to choose to they want to sell it to themselves at a high price to report a "Space" profit, or sell it to themslves at a low price to report a "Starlink" profit.

Perhaps, although what this filing shows is that they are actually losing money from their launch business, and all the profit is coming from Starlink.

It's interesting how revenues, and profits, from Starlink far outweigh that from their actual Space/Launch business.

In 2025 Starlink made $12B in revenue, and a profit of $4B

In 2025 Space made $4B in revenue, and LOST $0.6B

As always with Musk, the real potential is described as what they MIGHT do, not what they are actually doing, with his X.ai failure seeming to do most of the heavy lifting (excuse the pun) there.

In fact Musk embraces the pun and refers to their maxed out fanboy $300/mo Grok subscriptions as "SuperGrok Heavy".

Let's delve into your "charitable donations" ..

Your taxes are not only done, they're wrong.

You're absolutely right! You probably will be audited! I was wrong to lie on your tax return. I promise to not do it again.

(next time, does it again)