While Paramount claims they cancelled Colbert as a cost cutting move, that makes no sense since other late night shows on other networks with smaller audiences continue. They must make some sort of financial sense.

It is widely understood, though not provable, that the move was a bribe to Trump in order to get the merger approved. Trump has had a longstanding dislike of Colbert because of his commentary on Trump as a person and as the President.

When is a hard question. Rationally it should never have blown up this much in the first place (some expansion would be rational, but not like we've seen). Clearly the minds driving this are not rational.

Insanity is notoriously hard to predict. That's why short selling is so risky. The market can clearly remain irrational longer than most people can remain solvent when betting against it.

What makes solar financially un-viable in Austin? I live a long ways from Texas so there might be something really obvious here that I'm missing. I know the solar power arguments are older than the hills at this point (I remember roof top solar panels from many decades ago) but I'm interested in what about that location makes it doomed to not work out.

Or is there just no way for Tesla to make it financially viable? Could a more honest company pull it off in a different way?

Notepad++ just takes the best features of Kate and rolls them into a free Notepad replacement for Windows users so they don't suffer from its eternal failings. We don't need it in Linux, we already have all of its features. Windows users do need a functioning text editor out of the box, which Notepad++ provides as a free add-on instead.

Actually, the people who forget that seem to be in the business of marketing and press releases. QC has been the apocalypse that would turn the world on it's head breaking crypto left and right in the next 2 years for at least 10 years now. It still can't do prime factorization better or faster than a sixth grader with a pencil and paper. And the sixth grader won't charge as much.

Perhaps it will be useful one day, but not today. It may well take 100 years. Remember about 3 years ago when the size of quantum computers was going to double overnight? And how it went radio silent shortly after? The problem with QC isn't that it will never get here at all, it's the damned hype machine that promised it would be here now.

It's the same hype machine that told us we would be using crypto currency for all of our everyday transactions by now. The same hype machine that claims AI will replace everyone next year.

That's not how this works. There are a few ways to send an image to the bare display, but HDMI isn't one of them. If you actually look up the item list from TFS you will see that.

You didn't expect them to actually explain how you could manufacture an e-ink panel starting with sand and some chemicals in your kitchen, did you?

But it's not just the multi-billionaires. It's the many more multi-millionaires that produce nothing but wedge themselves into every transaction.

Look at any product that can be bought from an American company or direct from China. That HUGE price difference is how much the American company is skimming off the top.

It doesn't require nearly as many people working nearly as hard as we have now to provide for everyone.

That could well be a chicken-and-egg problem. Are the buyers buying what's available because it's available, or are the manufacturers making it because the buyers actually asked for it? I'm not aware of any Equinox driver anywhere who ever complained about it not being tall enough (or it being short enough to make it unnecessarily difficult to run over small people) yet Chevy raised the hood anyways.

The other problem is that the auto manufacturers see a distorted picture of car buyers. New cars are too expensive for a large fraction of all drivers; many drivers won't ever buy a brand new car. New car dealers are selling to people with more money, and making decisions around what those more affluent people might want in their cars - or more so are telling such people what they should want.

One does not negate the other.

That said, my own current work car is a 2025 Chevy Equinox. I previously had a 2021 Equinox. The 2025 pushed the top of the hood up a good 3-4 inches compared to the previous, and changed a few other functional angles as well. The goal was evidently the "truckification" of a small crossover SUV. The result was terrible. Sight lines are dramatically worse out of the front of the vehicle. Short people can disappear in front of the hood now that it is that much taller. This is even worse on actual trucks; Chevy Silverado full-sized pickups are leaving dealer lots with hoods that are 5 feet off the ground for no functional reason.

It is fair to point out that such collisions shouldn't happen often at normal driving speed. However you're overlooking other places where collisions do happen often between vehicles and pedestrians; namely parking lots and driveways. While the new cars have far more mandatory cameras to help drivers spot obstacles, they don't prevent every situation. Car manufacturers should be taken to the woodshed over this awful decision, and it's not just the American auto makers.

Ever wonder why so many new pickups pull backwards into parking spots? I had a new Silverado recently as a rental and I believe I discovered why. Those new trucks don't have forward facing cameras, but they do have backup cameras. They sit so high the driver can't easily see the lines or obstacles in front while attempting to park but when backing up the camera shows what's coming up behind. Terrible, terrible decisions.

That implies that the software was actually good to begin with. Outlook never had that characteristic, unless your criteria for "good" includes good for passing viruses.

My work phone is an iPhone, and we're required to use Outlook for work email. On average outlook gets patched twice a week for iPhone. The biggest flaw in it though has been there for years and clearly won't get patched.

Namely, Outlook for iPhone always defaults to reply all for emails with multiple recipients. It doesn't matter how long the list is, it will reply all unless you go out of your way to reply only to the sender. This has catastrophic consequences at large companies.

It is not uncommon to have email threads at my employer with dozens, or even over 100, recipients. When one goes out with any ambiguity we quickly see who on the list is reading it on their iPhone (vs their laptop) as they inevitably will end up doing a reply all without meaning to.

Apparently Microsoft sees this as a feature, even though they don't force this feature upon us in Windows.

I guess you didn't read very carefully. They found a marker that appears 5 years before a diagnosis and also part of the mechanism of smoking and other things causing lung cancer AND potentially how to interrupt it. That's a good bit more than simply finding a well known correlation.

I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

Since Microsoft doesn't honor their license agreements, why should anyone else?