They put out the salt blocks because the cows need it for their own nutritional purposes, not to spike the milk.

drip irrigation is "new" in the sense that it was developed in Israel 60 years ago and has been widely available in the states for over 40.

But sure, let's keep giving the farmers the benefit of the doubt and ignore how incredibly cheap their water is.

That problem doesn't go away with non-email usernames. As long as the password reset process is by email, the accounts are vulnerable to an expired domain attack.

This is a problem without a straightforward solution.

When? Well over 20 years ago in the dotcom era. Probably even earlier.

What's a youngin like you doing on this site?

Many developers refuse to acknowledge it's their responsibility to clear up ambiguity in specifications.

So many developers love to claim "not my fault there is a bug/doesn't work, you didn't provide good enough specifications"

This experiment shows that with "good enough specifications" you can skip the developer. Those kinds of devs that hate talking to people to gather requirements are going to be out of a job eventually.

Actually, no. Some of the contributing problems with tulips were betting on futures, fractional trading, shorts, and derivatives.

Which is a lot easier to do once a transaction has been identified. If you're money laundering you don't want to draw attention to your transactions - the whole point is to hide illegitimate transactions in a sea of legitimate ones so you go unnoticed.

Once a real physical asset is in play, it's a lot easier to identify the parties involved and investigate their other financial activities. If your defense is "prove it", you're already too late, the authorities are investigating you.

I was thinking about that, but you'd probably want to make your transaction a lot less newsworthy if you were money laundering.

Not all auctions work like Ebay where bids automatically ratchet between you and your competitor until one of you maxes out. Many auctions take fixed bids. Think of the cliched movie scene where someone waltzes in last-second and doubles the highest bid in a big showy display.

Buying something in 2022 at 100X its value in the hopes that there's a significant payout around 2070 doesn't seem like a particularly good investment strategy.

This adaptation will never be made. The rights to produce it are already long gone/resold which is why the 1984 and 2021 movies happened.

To make this movie, you would need to secure both the rights to produce a Dune movie (currently licensed by the Herbert estate to Legendary) AND the rights to produce Lodorowsky's vision (he's 92, so would probably end up being some battle between his estate, the estate of Jean Giraud the graphic artist that illustrated this, and whatever major studio conglomerate has inherited the rights to this specific version through bulk consolidation).

Dead scripts and storyboards rarely get revisited, and this one's way too entangled for anyone to waste their time with when another version is already successfully in theaters.

Slashdot existed long before targeted ads and will likely exist after. We'll see a return to advertising curated by the publisher, and only highest-bid generic ads (think TV-style advertising) in ads coming from exchanges. Basically will make it nearly impossible for small companies to buy online ads (though I have no opinion on whether that's a net good or bad at this point).

And the US has degrees and programs around digital marketing and "new media entrepreneurship"

When writing a law you have to define every term in the law, or rely on the legally accepted definitions. This is why laws are so long, and why they are full of "legalese". The lawyer who pulls out Webster's dictionary in court will be shut down immediately by their opponent and the judge.

In this case, there's several flawed understandings. The right to freedom from censorship is enshrined in the First Amendment - the "Freedom of the Press" - are you, an individual, a printing press? a journalistic reporting organization? or a direct member thereof? No, of course not. There have been Supreme Court cases that set precedent this right applies to all individuals, not just journalists. So just in this very simple example we've already established that "the press" has a different legal definition and supporting case law than the dictionary defintion. The same principle (and precedents) apply to "censorship". The established case law and legal definitions give you individual freedom from censorship from government entities (and those acting under government direction).

What the dictionary defines as censorship is irrelevant, because you have no Constitutionally-protected freedom from private censorship.