No argument, but none of that was on trial. They didn't lose because they largely ignore hate speech, misinformation, bots, etc - All of which are basically legal except in very specific contexts (licensed professional advice, incitement to violence). They lost because they lied about user privacy and their efforts at moderation.

This isn't apologia, but it's an important distinction to keep in mind. The first amendment is an effective defense of the content itself; it's not a defense against deceiving their customers and regulators. So why am I writing this? Because Zuck's appeal to 1A is merely another lie - Whether this stands or is eventually reduced on appeal, he's already spinning the PR away from the blunt fact of "we lost because lied", to the far squishier "Meh, moderation is hard, so sue us - Oh wait, you did LOL".

Great question! Just convince the 34-time Felon in Chief to obey the Epstein Files Transparency Act of December 2025, and maybe we'll have an answer.

You're barking up an empty tree here - I'm no fan of Biden, but the Executive didn't have the power to ignore the judicial seal from March 2013 through January 2024, when they were ordered unsealed for Giuffre's case (pity she conveniently ate a bullet before it could affect the election). Not coincidentally, January 2024 (under Biden) coincides with the first substantial release, followed by progressively more throughout 2024 as the data could be verified; and continued to be released in batches, right up through inauguration day when undeniable financial records were finally on the table, and instantly squashed by the incoming administration.

Meanwhile, the Executive also can't just ignore acts of Congress, such as the Epstein Files Transparency Act; yet here we are still debating "why" the files haven't been released as ordered.

Do you really want to compare the right's evidence-free hit-piece against Clinton against hundreds of thousands of pages of in this debate? But hey, whaddya know, it looks like Clinton is mentioned extensively in the Epstein files. If only POTUS would obey Congress and release them all, you might finally get to take down Slick Willy! Good! Lock all of the pedo trash up, but maybe let's at least start with the diaper fouling the Oval Office before we head back to dredging the swamps of Arkansas..

The word "DAC" is conspicuously missing from this press release. Every single detail I quoted only applies to the 1-2cm between the DAC and the jack (or if we're willing to hold crappy aftermarket headphones against Sony, maybe 2m in total between DAC and ears).

People are responding to my comment like we're talking about end-to-end high-entropy multi-GHz signals. Comparing the human auditory range with modern ultra-high-speed DACs, we may as well be talking about DC for all the difference it makes.

We don't disagree about DACs - The one relevant component Sony was suspiciously silent about.

As for the rest - If they have such serious signal degradation between the DAC and the jack, I stand by my assertion that it's fundamentally broken by design. Keep in mind we're talking about mere kilohertz signals traveling under two meters, this ain't exactly trying to squeeze 10 gig over 100m of UTP. If there's still significant jitter on the outputs half a million cycles later, I repeat, "design flaw".

Meanwhile in America the bleeding hearts want âoejusticeâ for a botched lethal injection death, and guilt-trip society when our Military wants to put a mass murderer in front of a firing squad. Pathetic.

And give pardons to the terrorists who attacked the Capitol in an attempt to overthrow the election, attacked police and put one in the hospital after he was repeatedly beaten and tasered, and destroyed and stole government property.

Audiophilles will be convinced they can hear a difference. They can't, but they will be convinced of it.

"Key components made from oxygen-free copper" are irrelevant to "uncompromising [digital] sound quality".

"Screws featuring a low-resistance gold-plated treatment" are irrelevant to "providing a stable ground connection that delivers powerful [digital] bass, an expansive [digital] soundstage and smooth, extended [digital] high frequencies".

"Carefully-milled slabs of copper" are irrelevant to "improved [digital] sound".

C'mon Sony, do better! At least in the analog world nobody could disprove the audiophiles' ridiculous superstitions. Digital, however, is either mathematically flawless, or fundamentally broken by design. There is no "better" or "worse" - Well, at least not until you run it over Bluetooth, which takes all of the above as a challenge to make it worse.

The famously creepy birthday card was from 2003, making it clear they were already sharing "a wonderful secret" prior to 2004.

Please explain how a 2007 tiff led to a 2004 break-up. And for the record, every account except Orange Daddy's describes that tiff as involving Epstein poaching the... uh... "enigmas" from Mar-a-Lago.

As for Maxwell... You don't find it just a wee bit curious she made that claim after an off-the-record meeting with Blanche? Immediately following which she - by complete coincidence, of course - mysteriously got a transfer and became (according to fellow inmates) the de-facto princess of Club Fed?

And looking into the future and predicting your demand for evidence - We agree completely! Congress even passed a law demanding the release of exactly that evidence, which Trump's DOJ instead spent months and millions redacting the names of billionaires while, oopsie, forgetting to redact the victims' names.

Say, remind me again - Why would anyone stonewall the release exonerating evidence?

I don't understand that instead of spending a few million on improving the code and the algorithmd they are instead spending billions on infrastructure?

The same could be said for computers. Why spend all the money on increasing processor or RAM speed or new video cards when you could just update the code behind the OS and software? We'd still be using 486 machines!

"And the UK handed you the brand new computer industry on a plate by destroying all the computers it had built during the war while not requiring that you do the same with the licensed copies you had built."

The UK decided to destroy its computers on its own, don't blame us for your idiocy. "Require"? What were you going to "require" we do? And how were you going to enforce this "requirement"?

And what licensed copies are you talking about? Britain shared the Bombe (which was basically an upgraded version of the one the Polish built, but of course Brits insist they're the geniuses who broke Enigma), but ENIAC was a US production.

Business school is a 2-year cocktail party.

By far, the people most certain to the answer to that question are those convinced that it used to be so much better, the belief being particularly strong among those who weren't alive yet.

Ah, I had missed Trump accounts because they originally couldn't hold individual stocks according to how congress defined them in the legislation. I was not aware Trump and co were trying to do an end-run around the legislation by arguing that the law doesn't prohibit corporations from donating individual shares.

However, that's a pretty new development, is controversial, and its unclear how it would really work, especially in tandem with the other rules.

Its good for everyone, including Spacex. But because its Musk you have to find a reason to call it bad. Get some perspective.

This is the guy who installed an unsecured Starlink terminal on top of the White House, then uploaded the entire Social Security database to an unsecured cloud environment somewhere in the world.

We have the perspective. Do you?