"Creators" just need to learn to make content for the media they are actually working in. More people than ever consume media on the 'mid-size' screen, TVs in the 32-65in class.

They are not going to the cinema to see your movie, and even when they do, it won't be on file, it well a 4k (or more) digital projector that is brighter than ever (or could be).

Film was the media movies were made in and they people making them learned to work with it to achieve good artistic results. Low frame-rates, single exposure for the entire image, single focus chosen by the camera operator not where the ultimate view might wish to look, single focal range, are all characteristics of film. That is all they are though, characteristics that go with that media, they are not virtues that need to be replicated on other media.

A real actually talented group of folks making a movie would consider the modern screen characteristics its going to be viewed on and would find a way to make some that looks really good, and is joy to watch on/in that media. If painter switched from water color to oil and refused to make any other stylistic changes, we would not entertain their insistence the problem is with the paints and canvass, at least not for long.

I expect that is what this is really about. Amazon wants to watch you shop and Amazon wants to influence how you shop by the order it presents results to you, what related items it shows you, various pricing signals, etc.

All that breaks down if some AI agent is sifting the results Amazon returns. The lose the opportunity to gauge your real interest by how long you linger on a product page, they lose the opportunity to cross sell you, they can't try out A/B strategies on you if AI is doing your shopping.

Exactly nobody in online retail wants bots scraping their site. Amazon's objections are unsurprising but what I am more surprised at is they have not simply implemented some better anti-bot detection that can spot Perplexity and just make it not work.

ISIS is just Al-Qaeda remnants and offshoots with more pragmatic / regionally focused leadership. Al-Qaeda for its part still exists as well and is still quite active, still quite a threat in places like Mali even now.

Sooner or later their would have been some kinda of coup against OBL's leadership or he would have evolved toward a more ISIS like agenda to keep the movement alive.

Our post 9/11 policy certainly changed the names in the terrorist recruitment videos and likely moved the hotspots from where they might have been to places like Syria and Lybia, but I think the idea we created the conditions needed for ISIS is not really true.

We kicked a bees nest but the swarm was already there.

As to Syria and al-Sharaa; frankly there is zero real evidence he will be any less tyrannical than Assad is and Trump's hosting him is either entirely premature out of his desire to be seen as the great global peace maker, or is a jab at Putin who isn't cooperating on Trump's Ukraine agenda. Either way I predict it will be regrettable and likely embarrassing moment in US foreign policy.

I think the real answer is enough leadership recognized that controlling Afghanistan would likely be impossible.

Nationalist pride prevented any kind of public admission that the lessons of history also apply to the USA however. I think there was a real and sincere desire thought to get OBL and related terrorist leadership. That was a problem because it would mean they'd likely be able to dodge around mountain regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan (a nominally ally) indefinitely.

The 'solution' was then to try to draw them out. With Pakistan and Saudi Arabia off the list for reasons of economy and preservation of faith in ally-ship, we needed another target. That left Iraq and Iran as logical options where we could 'invent' plausible cause for hostilities. Iraq looked better because it seems like they were less capable (we already more or less had air superiority).

I also think it was out of effort to preserve that international order and system of rules. The alternative was going to be to ignore national boarder and operate likely without consent inside middle eastern nations. They could never give consent for political reasons. Did it work, I think looking in the rear view mirror the answer has to be partly, but not near as well as hoped.

The problem is the target of this rewrite.

These are shell utilities. These are very mature shell utilities. They types of problems Rust fixes are not for the most relevant.

Might there be memory related bugs present, sure but if leaks, use after free(s), etc exit they are so small and so hard to hit they effectively don't matter at this point because the severe enough to matter ones were fixed a decade ago, and these are not long lived processes.

Security wise these are running as the owner, they don't generally represent an escalation or even lateral path. When they do the do so because some other owner process shell's out to them so attacks must be 'second order' or higher. Those are both incredibly difficult to find, and generally pretty difficult to exploit even when you know of them. For a threat to be real you need 1) and serious data-to-control violation to exist in the utility, IE grep'ing or sorting a crafted file triggers part of the file to be executed or something like that. Which would have to involve a pretty obscure set of flags/usecase ortherwise again it would already have been fixed, the affected application needs to use the utility in the obscure way, and it needs to be possible to craft a payload that passes any other lays of validation and still meets the exploit conditions...

I don't want to be all anti-rust here, because there is value in memory safety. Now I would argue that memory-safe C++ is going to be more familiar to everyone and would be a better all around choice as a systems language; especially because the impedance with existing C interfaces is better. Rust is fine on its own but I don't think actually belongs in Unix-like platform... Rewriting more complex things like Curl, parts of the Kernel, Sudo, etc in something memory safe probably has security dividends and maybe performance dividends. Rewriting "sort" does not.

Let's be honest about why the Rust crew took on this project. They are acting like a cancer trying to get as much core stuff into Rust as possible to help force everyone to deal with it. Like a cancer they attacked what they saw as an easy target, even though it isn't a valuable, one. Its kinda like systemd taking over things like DNS resolution that it absolutely does not need to do but simple can. Its bad practice all around, and will make my general views of supporting rust anyway far more prejudicial against.

1.) I just want to see a reference for this. You do understand that it's possible for a Left leaning person to have African ancestry, right?

2.) I've never heard someone with African ancestry living in America ask the public to refer to them with the term mention in the GP. Maybe the reference to #1 will clear this up?

3.) Even the SPLC puts the number of KKK between 3000 and 4000 individuals, in a nation of 330 million plus people. During the 1930's, one in ten Americans was a member of the KKK; today it's less than 1 in 100,000. Put another way, the concentration of white supremacists in the United States has gone from 100,000 ppm to just 10 ppm in less than a hundred years.

The reason Left leaning people never celebrate the gains made by minorities is because the underlying principle of Leftist politics is to condemn the innocent majority for factors and circumstances beyond their control. It doesn't matter how little racism actually exists, as long as there exists a shocking incident in the past, the Leftist can find reason to condemn people today, who had no actual connection to the incident or policy in question. Witness, for example, how Barak Obama characterized as racist the nation that just elected its first minority President. As a nation, the pendulum has swung so far back in the other direction that Leftists now justify DEI policies, as if more racism would somehow bring about a fairer, more just society for all. It didn't work in the past, doesn't work now, and it won't work in the future, and if the Left is realizing anything, their recent loss to an absolute imbecile must certainly have shown them that America would much rather have an asshole as President than a Left-leaning racist. You may have been able to say that you were on the right side of history 60 years ago, but you can't say that today. America has realized that racism doesn't work for us, we don't want any part of it, we've moved on, and the sooner you recognize that, the better.

After all, even the Democrats are now ashamed of their past association with the KKK, and you should be too.

Right but all this ignores the mid-level management if it is 'good' are at the most valuable during times of transition and in the event of calamity

Effective mid-level management would have been able enhanced the response to an outage. They would have KNOW exactly which engineers were key, and been able to quickly name them and get them excused/pulled off of whatever else they were doing, brought back from PTO, etc to get the problem solved.

Same thing when it comes to transition, good middle management knows all the policy minutia and can step in and fill in all the blanks make the other necessary changes when upper management articulate some kind of top line change.

The problem is a lot of middle management is not good, and they don't know it, upper management does not know it because in times of steady state, they often really are not very busy. Bad middle management and middle management that does not understand their own role are very often quite harmful. Good middle management are strong organization and tactical people - they are 'fixers' They are are bearing grease of the organization, doing it well is about keeping the grit out of it.

Prices are normal - not low - at the movement because the left the isnt in power, if the left was in power they would be higher.

Obviously the 2000s era of Middle East instability and OPEC politics did create a rather sharp period of real price growth, that has never been reversed. Still computer controlled FI was pretty mature by the mid-90s. The post 2000s real price appreciation by ONLY about $0.50 a gallon (today's dollar), isn't real signification in terms of what makes automobile ownership expensive.

Its the upfront capital cost of the car, the much higher typical repair costs. Much of that is actually driven by safety and environmental requirements. Yes it is true the regular maintenance is less, but then cars of the past largely did not require special tools, and most folks learned to file their points, change more frequently fouled plugs, and turn the mixture screws on their carbs until the thing started easier and sounded better, even if they did not understand why; so it really cost them very little.

I have 45 year old car that I use as my daily most of the summer. It does not cost much more to run than my wife's 2017 car, for roughly the same miles driven. Yes I use around 140% of the fuel she does. But one maintinance event where hers has to go to the dealer to have some 'proxy-alignment' performed to make the can bus happy because a broken door handle got replaced, vs my 15min with a philips head and mail order part from Rock Auto, and those fuel savings are wiped out entirely.

Obviously when the classic if I need some specific out of production part that is a different story, but that is function of supply and market size, AND arguably after market replaces exist and are affordable precisely because they don't require chips, rom code and digital signatures, anyone with a mill and a reasonable sample of the original to model off of can make em. I really wonder if it will even be possible to keep 2020s car on the road in 2060...without turning it into some kind of rat-rod, good luck replacing many of the electronic components should they fail. That of course means the TCO will be even higher, because the life of the asset will be shorter.

The good news is the OBBA removed penalties for not meeting CAFE so maybe we can get at least some enthusiast products with sane choices about maintainability!

Because this solution assumes that adversaries are uniformed.

It might work for some custom for your organization/group messaging platform that nobody knows anything about, in the even someone says "hey what's this open it up" but hidden profiles however accomplished with whatever mix to cryptography, steganography, just keeping all the data remote so you don't have to hide the local copies and changing behavior based on some login signal generally won't work for something like Signal.

If signal implemented something like this it would become widely know, it would not take long for various government offices to put out memos directing agents to demand multiple passwords from signal users. Criminal gangs and such would be unlikely to take much longer to push such information out to their various gophers and enforcers. At that point you are going have these types of actors faced with "I suspect this person for whatever reason and they are not giving me more than one password, guess I gotta detain them, beat them sensless, confiscate their device, etc." Let's be real about why a lot of people will be viewed as suspect too in a wide number of situations the world over, they have wrong political sticker on their bumper, they belong to some racial group, they are male between 14-28, they are female, or otherwise fit a pattern of being the local boggeyman.

Now I do think that profiling works and subjecting certain groups in certain places to enhanced scrutiny is a downright sensible practice and probably needed for safety and order, but I also know 99 of the 100 people you subject to such enhanced scrutiny are probably entirely benign, creating something that has the potential make them look more suspect with cryptography used in such a way the literally CANT show they are not hiding something isnt going to be helpful.

As you usual ignorant and wrong about everything. In inflation adjusted terms gas prices are not significantly higher if higher at all now than at any previous point.

So no fuel efficiency has not been the driver in terms of making driving affordable. However the cost of car big enough for the entire family on the other hand has increased a lot. Inflation adjusted you could have had a 55 Bel air for something like 25k.

Find a 25k car that you can five people in today, with any degree of comfort.

So no 'chips' have made cars wildly better in many ways but they have not made the cost of ownership picture better - at least not if we assume that without the advanced safety features like ABS, backup cams, tire pressure monitoring, .... would never have existed been required, and emissions standards would have been set to achievable targets for analog/mechanical fuel deliver systems carbs or FI.

She has a relationship with her existing divorce lawyer. This is a simple ask, probably a 1hour effort, we are looking 300-600 bucks here.

This is a good example of why no-fault divorce is terrible idea for society. It is expensive and wasteful. Getting divorced is generally the WRONG decision, unless there is actual abuse or infidelity, or criminal activity of some kind.

I am by no means an expert but I do have family court judges as family members. They wield enormous power to legally compel people to do all manor of things that even tangentially impact children in divorce proceedings.

She needs to ask her lawyer to petition the court to require her ex to transfer to her control/ownership of all software as a service and third-party identity provider accounts associated with the children; as she is the primary custodial parent. That should be easy enough to get the court to agree to, and she can easily notify them if he does not comply and cause him to be placed in contempt.

The only place where it gets 'kinda hairy' is things like Netflix where you might have one account with many profiles and there is no way to migrate a profile between one account, but they are separate house holds now under the TOS they can't share any longer anyway. In those cases the account holder is the account holder end of story. Really the lawyers are not this dumb, they can work this stuff out easily, it is just nobody is asking them to. It is way more fun to go run to the media say 'whaa Apple won't help me violate their policies!'

No wonder he left her...

That is a profoundly weird way to look at it that has sadly been popularized I by what I would suggest is secular media.

Christians don't believe the return of Christ is the end of the world, but more the end of the world as we know it. Christ is to return to rule and effectively eliminate sin, in a final battle, how literal or figurative the visions in Revelation are is something a debate; but doubtless we are talking great upheaval here. It isn't as if the heart hardened wicked leaders of current nations are just going to step aside let alone the serpent.

It is also worth remembering that God keeps his word, the faithful are promised resurrection and that includes in body. Those that have gone to sleep will walk. If you look at that from a worldly perspective that creates a lot of challenges, so I personally think we have to expect natural law/physics as we know it is going to be largely suspended or altered. This I think is why the visions/prophesy in Revelation are so very wild. They just nearest way present events that will otherwise be entirely foreign to any human experience to date.

Interesting thought actually. Given the cess pit the ad supported, social-* web has become; maybe a subscription supported bulletin board would appeal to people. They same way vinyl records seem to appeal to mean in a world Prime Music and Spotify...

You have to understand if you are producing a commodity or not and manage the business according. If you are in tech or entertainment; new novel products are where you bread is buttered.

To make new novel products, yes you need your current activities to be 'high-margin' but that does not mean the overall business is going to be high margin. If you plan to be long term; well you better re-invest those profits into trying new things; many of which will fail.

The other two options are - extraction. You reap the profits from the existing work but when the industry moves on you're left behind and that is the end of the studio/department.

Commoditize - make cheap iterative shovel-ware and ruthlessly pursue efficiency to generate profits. It is sustainable (probably) but long term also ends up being low margin, with you being one of many players in a crowded space.

Those are the Software industry business plans in a nutshell and whatever else you are doing in the way of special sauce, you kinda got pick one, and embrace it.