I'm not sure why you are working so hard to ignore it; but what has people up in arms isn't the abstract question of how productive capitalism is; that question has been more or less decisively settled; but over the question of which 'we', exactly, would see the output.

Those numbers look less good; both in terms of their present state and what direction all the trendlines point in.

It's extra tricky to tell a satisfying story in the American context; both because the period of heavy industrial employment looks particularly good in hindsight because it coincided with both most of the foreign competition borrowing a lot of American money to set their own industrial base on fire and because it coincided with the last period of vaguely plausible external communists, which inclined the plutocrats of the day not to push their luck too hard; but the same general problem sets in in general: there's an easy feel-good story to tell about going from children with bloated bellies and flies, too mired in (sub)subsistence agriculture to even be market participants any useful sense; to going through the bit of industrialization that is kind of downer but at least generates something resembling a middle class; to what happens after that: where the storyteller may not exactly be lying about the wondrous state of the GPD and all(though, with the percentage of it that's financial sector you are inclined to doubt); but they simply aren't talking about the fact that no matter how well "we" are doing real wages and real costs of living just seem to be wiggling toward one another in deeply concerning ways and all 'innovation' and 'efficiency' have to show me is that I could totally buy an 80 inch TV when my parents would have had to put a 20 inch CRT on layaway; but when it comes to the things that actually cost money, like a house, or a doctor, or 4 years of school I'm hilariously worse off than they were and everyone's got a pointed finger and no answers.

Sure, if "we" all got the GDP divided by the population I'm sure "we" would all be happy about how the invisible hand was doing a bang-up job. Tell us more. But if you are sufficiently ignorant, whether by some amazing feat of avoidance or by sheer stubbornness, to think that it's actually that, not the actual nature of the distribution, and its change over time; then I think you have nothing useful to tell us here.

Sure, North Koreans and mud farmers are starving for want of capitalism; go forth and preach the good word; but don't pretend that having a good story for zero to 10k is a terribly transferrable skill when speaking to those who ended up poorer(or richer on paper but oddly unable to afford more of anything except transistorized toys, than their parents) or watching their children on the path to being so; it either reflects badly on your own intelligence or is an insult to that of your audience.

They should not have closed it down. An open system would have a broader attraction and more customers.

Probably plenty of reasons to keep it closed - if it's a therapy device, it could fall under FDA regulations and to keep it certified it has to be protected.

It could also be the "secret sauce" technology they were hoping to commercialize for investors. Chances are this was weighed against an open model.

Now, just because they open-source it doesn't mean it'll keep its functionality. THere's a good chance they may only be able to release the software for the device, allowing it to be used in other ways. It's just you won't have a $800 piece of plastic e-waste in the end. The secret sauce software will likely be held onto as trade secrets of assets that will be sold around, and the open soruce part lets people use the hardware for other purposes

Because the evidence for the murder suicide doesn't make sense in the context of murder suicide. If you wanted to murder suicide you could do it literally at any time. No need to turn off any tracking, no need to pre plan a flight route. Just knock out the copilot, and nosedive the plane into the ground.

Not if you want the plane to be easily found. The fact that we haven't found it makes it murder-suicide but without any details we have nothing but speculation.

There have been plenty of pilot suicides over the years - SilkAir was one where we recovered everything and quickly deduced the pilot committed suicide because of huge gambling debts. But chances are good in SilkAir, the pilot also had a very distinguished career.

Different cultures have differing attitudes towards things like mental illness and suicide, and many countries still make suicide illegal (Malaysia being one of them).

Chances are, societies that are far more open about suicides probably have pilots who are less worried about hiding it - hence also GermanWings. Even though most places outside the US view mental illness as something that would ground a pilot, I'm sure in Germany the attitude towards suicide is not one where you hide it from society or it brings shame to your family.

Likely in Malaysia, as long as it remains a mystery, the family still gets the benefits and other things

I pray he gets a series of mistrials and the charges dropped.

No, you should hope for the two most dreaded words to the courts - Jury Nullification.

Basically, it means the there is no doubt that he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the jury feels that justice will not prevail if he's guilty so they all vote "not guilty". It's dreaded because the prosecution knows they have an open and shut case, but the jury can still find justice is not served and throw it all out.

And because of double jeopardy, he can't be tried again for it.

The prosecution is basically going to have to find 12 people who have not been screwed over by health insurance, or know someone who has not been screwed over. The defense would just have to find 12 sympathetic jurors who basically want to send a message to the ruling class.

The real irony would be the fact that the only people not screwed over would be the ruling class - but those people have the easiest time wriggling out of jury duty.

This is likely one of those cases where Jury Nullification can actually play a spoiler role.

It doesn't help that they're basically trying to make a martyr out of him, and that general public opinion is with him. Also it doesn't hurt his chances given the incoming administration is basically trying to enrich the rich through corruption and other means, so by the time the trial happens, public sentiment against the rich could harden making it even all the more likely.

Especially as many decisions the courts have made recently have been against the poorer citizens for not being able to afford a way around the laws.

And yes, it's legal to spread information about Jury Nullification around, first amendment and all that, despite very interested parties (namely the courts) really wishing you rather not.

It seems almost meaningless to talk 'eventual' uptake when the relevant hardware has been added to more or less all current laptop CPUs, without there being NPU-less variants that cost less, so basically anyone who buys a new laptop in the future will, technically, be 'adopting an AI PC'.

Yeah, but also as the 800 pound gorilla its in their interest to keep selling more games, yeah?

I'm not sure that they'll end up going after Valve to get the results; but it's arguably the case that we've already seen the (really annoying) adaptation:

"Older games" certainly includes various well loved singleplayer titles or 'classic' multiplayer ones that don't kick back to the mothership anymore; but it also includes 'live service' and not-technically-live-service-but-look-at-all-those-skins-and-battle-passes titles that happen to have original release dates from some time ago.

Something like DOTA2 is a decade old; and based on ongoing cosmetics sales I'm doubting that anyone wants that 'old' game taken out and shot, at least not before DOTA3 is fully ready to go. This wouldn't show in the Steam numbers necessarily; but Fortnite is a mid 2017 release; and also still spinning money.

There has been a lot of publisher movement toward games that are expected to be long-running; but designed to continue paying out. That's not all of them; and there are probably a few back catalog titles whose longevity is cursed in the boardroom; but publisher strategies already seem to have substantially shifted to trying to cultivate and monetize ongoing play vs. steady purchase and relatively quick abandonment of retail releases.

If the industry starts paying attention to this, they are absolutely going to start leaning on valve to discourage playing older games and something is going to become a lot more annoying.

I'm sure that Google can do whatever it does cheaper if it fires some people; but it feels weird for a company as erratic and rudderless as they are to be talking about 'efficiency'. Maybe don't develop and then cancel products apparently at random if you want to feel more efficient; rather than immediately moving to develop and then cancel products apparently at random but with 10-30% fewer staff?

*wanking motion* https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/...

That's not the ask, nor is a climate that never changes the promise of such a ruling. But keep swinging at that strawman.

... how do you like that your new iPhone has a USB-C port? Nice, isn't it?

Not really, because I now have to invest in all new accessories for my new iPhone, because I have Lightning cables and other devices that now have to be replaced with USB-C equivalents.

And some devices are really expensive that you're forcing me to replace.

And all that e-waste of stuff I can no longer use because my new phone doesn't support them, from speakers and docks and other plug in accessories.

Sure, it's compatible with other USB-C phones I have (which I don't), so as far as I'm concerned, the directive just caused me to spend money on something that really doesn't benefit me.

Maybe if I switch it might improve things? But so far, it's a nightmare.

I guess the ISR-1000 series sorta counts?

They bill them as "Small business" but they're basically just home routers in a more professional looking case.

I think that's largely the consensus I've seen among people who don't short circuit "China bad" in their head, yeah. But, even so, it's hard to see this as effective use of money.

Like, say you agree that the United States needs to maintain its position as de-facto hegemon. Is spending (this much) money to replace old routing equipment with newer equipment within your own borders really doing much to improve matters? I feel like it comes from a mistaken assumption that tech is tech and as long as you're investing in "technology" you're expanding your industrial base for "technology". Cisco systems' next few years of profit have been secured, but how does that facilitate any long-term strength for the US as a nation? Is network infrastructure really so up-and-coming as to need the funds for R&D? I'm not sure I buy that.

I bet it was the backdoors the Chinese government foisted upon us through that nefarious huawei, right?

Oh, no? It was FBI mandated backdoors in Cisco routers, the very thing we're paying to install more of?

This seems like a great idea.