Ie, a cable that doesn't support HDMI 1.4 which means no CEC, no ARC and stuck at 1080p.

Just think FOMO when it comes to AI and datacenters, and that leads to unsound decisions.

Have you looked? The support for HEC (or HEAC as it is called sometimes) is spotty but it exists although since WiFi is more prevalent now the support for HEC is extremely rare on newer devices.

I'll just point out that if your devices support HDMI Ethernet Channel (HEC) and one of them are connected to the network, congratulations, it's possible they share that network connection over HDMI. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Of course, which makes this whole thing so much worse! They didn't feed it!

That statement is only true if the total economic outcome is exactly the same for the taxpayers, something that is rarely true.

I looked up the press releases Siemens put out when they bought Altair for $10 billion, and who would have guessed, it's part of their AI-push:

Translation: We are looking at our options on how to extract as much money as possible from the users of this software.

Pretty much this. Element has it issues, but the major problem is that users expect it to work like Teams or whatever they were using before the switch so they complain. When our company switched to Elements a year ago the major complaint from users was that it didn't work like the previous application.

Personally I think Teams is absolute shit and I prefer Elements, but that's just my opinion

The problem with everyone having an opinion on something is that most people don't actually bother learning the details of the subject, because if they did they would know their opinion is shit and based on made up personal expectations and what some rando said on the internet - just like your opinion.

BEAD was a bi-partisan effort, it's not the "Biden broadband plan". It was built upon the BRIDGE (Building and Renewing Infrastructure for Development and Growth in Employment) act. The states that will get the most funding from BEAD happens to be red or purple and the state that get's the most is Texas with $3.38 billion. This administration fucked around with the rules who could get the money which lead to allocating $668 million to Starlink and $311 million to Amazon's Project Kuiper and about $21 billion (out of $42.5 billion) was said to be "non-deployment funds" - ie a likely scenario is that some people wanted to use that money for something else while calling it "savings". A bunch of states, including red states, made a big stink about those $21 billion and which forced NTIA to suddenly announce last week that there will now be a new round of funding for underserved areas. Texas even put a hold on the grant money because it felt that the program had been changed to benefit billionaires.

Do yourself a favor, go and actually read the BEAD act and look up what fuckery this administration did to it instead of sounding like someone defensively making shit up out of thin air to score some imaginary points from likeminded people.

Basic economy says that limited consumer choice of goods and/or services, creates a distorted market that leads to higher prices, products that doesn't actually fit what the consumer needs, lack of availability because it isn't "profitable enough", stagnation in product development and infrastructure investment.

How many actually have a choice in an ISP? And it also seems you missed or forgot that before the federal net neutrality law that came into effect in 2015 some ISP's actually introduced zero-rating while intentionally maintaining low caps which meant a price hike for consumers who went outside their ISP's preferred services, and that through the secondary effects I mentioned above.

Have people actually forgot what a total and utter shit show it was to get a decent internet connection without almost being bled to death financially before 2016? It has gotten better, but not by much unless you live in very specific areas. Another reminder of that shit show in case people have forgotten, in 2013/2014 Comcast and Verizon intentionally slowed down Netflix streams until Netflix coughed up a bunch of money to get "preferred peering", ie those ISP's wanted more money even though people had already paid for their internet connection but they couldn't jack up consumer prices any higher.

So if someone can't have a monopoly on local TV broadcasts they are being censored?

No, the FCC had to balance public interest vs corporate and political interests because it's more beneficial to give the public more choice and different views.

Where's the competition if all the local broadcasters are owned by the same company?

Oh, so every American has internet? Funny that, about ~25 million Americans lack access to reliable internet access.

If addressed, there will not be any competition at all because most of the local broadcasters will be bought up by one company. Sinclair Broadcast Group tried this in 2018 by hiding their purchasing of Tribune Media through shell companies which resulted in them being sued and fined 48 million in 2020.

If FCC repeals the 39% national cap Sinclair will quickly dominate local broadcast and considering what has happened to every other local broadcaster they bought, those broadcasters will be gutted and start to air mostly news-slop that is produced centrally.

I guess it has escaped your notice that a consolidation of media is happening which means that a handful of billionaires are becoming the sole owners of a majority of all media which in turn means they get to decide what everyone can see, not you or the public. Anyone with a smidgen of critical thinking knows that is bad, like dystopian bad.

I do wonder what happened to the basic fact that if your field of vision is obstructed it increases the risk of you hitting something you didn't see regardless if you are driving a car, truck or lawn-mover and there exists a bunch of studies (correlative and others) for this.

Anyone thinking you need a double blind study to prove this fact should just cover the lower 1/3 of a pair of sunglasses with black tape and then take a walk.

So let me get this right, a company that refuses to work with the government because of said company's ethical concerns of militarized AI is so dangerous that they are forbidden to do business outside the US compared to companies that are willing to militarize their AI and are still allowed to keep doing business abroad?

Don't you think that reasoning is ass-backward?

Do you want to know the real reason? Anthropic didn't kiss Trump's ass. That's it, because this administration gets vindictive if you don't toe the line.

So ask yourself, why are just one company singled out and not all?