They might, eventually.

Future development is a thing. The world went from the Wright brothers first powered flight to a working jet aircraft in just over 35 years.

1. Resource extraction: The moon is rich in resources such as helium-3, which could be used as a clean and abundant energy source on Earth. Extracting these resources would require a permanent lunar base.
2. Scientific research: A permanent base on the moon would provide a stable platform for scientific research, particularly in the fields of astronomy, geology, and physics. The moon's lack of atmosphere and minimal magnetic field make it an ideal location for studying the universe and the Earth-moon system.
3. Space exploration: A lunar base could serve as a stepping stone for future manned missions to Mars and other deep space destinations. It would provide a testing ground for technologies and living conditions required for long-duration space travel.
4. Technology development: A permanent lunar base would spur the development of new technologies, such as advanced life support systems, radiation protection, and lunar mining equipment.
5. Economic growth: The development of a lunar base could stimulate economic growth and create new industries related to space exploration and resource extraction.
6. National security: A permanent lunar base could provide strategic advantages for the nation that establishes it, particularly in terms of space-based surveillance and communication capabilities.

There are probably more if I gave it further thought but this is a start on a list.

I read the headline and thought it was something about screen information and video filtering and thought, why? Since X11 has always been open source.

But I see that it's about twitter and that's something I've never used and have never made any effort to understand.

I guess I'm an old coot...

If I can one-click to print a document why should there be a confirmation dialog when I click the button to reformat my hard drive?

An app store has more permissions and a greater ability to do severe damage to your phone than a checkers game.

Reading the article the judge is saying thing like "make that buttons say Install and not View", and ordering many similar small design details like that.

"I don't like that screen, get rid of it."

So the judge is ordering actual and specific program design.

Anyone who uses Microsoft Windows has no problem with this since that's how it works. Programs magically appear on the menu and/or panel bar, and sometimes disappear again with no user interaction required.

"Who wears glasses while they are having sex?"

Maybe her beauty was blinding.... :-)

I remember a huge outcry around surveillance cameras in stores and the like a few decades ago.

Now everyone seems to accept/ignore the fact that you're being recorded while shopping at Walmart or even just driving down the street.

So is this another flash-in-the-pan surveillance outrage that will fade away just like it apparently did before?

My idea of smart glasses that would actually be useful would be something that would be a personal computer display like you see in some science fiction movies. Wouldn't it be handy to be able to view a "monitor" of any apparent size (tiny and in the corner, or filling your field of view, or...) while you're walking down the street or riding a bus?

Switching to Linux from any of those would likely save a lot of costs, in terms of both hardware and software licensing.

"t's a fucking CAR why would I need software updates?"

I have a 2025 Ford Escape and it's had a few software updates since I bought it.

The last one was to an update to the gear change module, according to the changelog notice I got on the screen when it was installed.

AI call taking seems to be getting to be more common and, I guess, very inexpensive.

My plumber (one man and a truck full of tools out working on his own) has an AI answering his phone now. I called him a while back and a woman answered the phone. Ok, I thought, must be his wife answering the phone. She asked what I needed and said that she will pass the information on, then asked a further question that was related to what I had said but that was worded too... "formally", I suppose, for the subject under discussion (an outstanding order for air conditioner part that I was had called for an update on) and I suddenly realized that it's not a person I'm talking to.

And this is a one-man plumbing operation, not a big corporate entity.

Again, this is one guy

"Do you blame the 19-year old airman working the military ID desk"

If you're working for an organization that's engaging in immoral, unjustified and/or illegal activities, and you're not already on your way out the door, then you're part of the problem.

Regardless of whether the organization is governmental or solely commercial. Or both.

Actually, it's exactly the same issue. Just using a different program.

The pdf redaction folks drew black bars over extant text and hid it that way.

The excel chap clicked on "hide this tab".

So both of them used what they assumed was a method to hide the data. It turned out to be nothing of the kind, of course, but in both of these situations they made exactly the same mistake using exactly the same set of expectations and ended up with the same results.

And how many times have "redacted" pdf files been found to have simple black bars draw over text that still exists in the pdf file.

If a student was reading the assignment using something that didn't render html colours then he would read that instruction and figure it's a test to see if he read the assignment instructions completely.

Some bands (Van Halen?) used to do that, and maybe still do. They have multi-page technical specifications for what they need at a venue for equipment or lighting, whatever else, and somewhere in the middle of all of this fine print they'll put something like "We require a bowl with exactly six red jelly beans in the dressing room." Then when they arrive to do the concert if they don't find six red jelly beans in the dressing room they know that their specifications had not been completely read and could then take steps to verify that what really mattered to them had actually been done, whereas if the jelly beans were present then they knew that the specifications had been thoroughly scrutinized and acted on.

The chances of that having happened here are probably nil, of course.