Ok sure, you can trade out ports on the side to have what you need, but they all plug into a USB-C port... so why wouldn't I just get a USB-C to whatever-the-fuck-I-need cable for $20 and be done?

This is just more parts to lose, and a thicker case from all that plastic.

Tell us you have no idea how criminal law works, without telling us you have no idea how criminal law works.

"People all over the place keep evidence of crime on their phones" is not sufficient PC to get a warrant to look at that specific person's phone. You know how I know that? Change "on their phones" to "in their houses" and see how it reads for law enforcement doing an illegal search without a warrant.

I didn't read a single word of that screed you wrote after seeing just how bafflingly wrong you were in your very first step.

General suspicion is not probable cause for violating rights, and would have charges tossed before a jury is seated.

The headline should be "Arizona State University Offers BA in Narcissism"

I remember when they were a school that wasn't a fucking joke - my father got an accounting degree and a CPA from ASU as his second bachelor's.

They probably would love to not use SpaceX, but as you said, nobody else exists for the price-to-launch SpaceX is selling.

At some point petty bullshit gives way to getting the job done, if you are running a business. See: Tesla still using AWS.

And most people aren't going to send $16 to $20 a month to 5 different streamers. Most people are smarter than that.

They'll give you a month, watch everything they give a fuck about, and then cancel and move their money to a different service. And all these services lose money and never gain subscribers - it's an oversaturated market where there is far more supply than demand.

These guys are playing like it's still the days of linear TV, and if you don't see it when it's published you're shit out of luck. That is not the case with streaming - I can watch every damn episode of Land Man in a month and then tell Paramount to fuck off while I move my money to Disney+ to binge what I care about there, and then tell them to fuck off too.

It's almost like you have to do resource management if you don't want randoms to cost you shitloads of money on a cloud-based platform.

Who knew?

Many people around here predicted as streaming balkanized, that we would see a consolidation at some point as the greedy fuckwits that thought they could somehow run their own service with only their content and charge as much as Netflix does for a much bigger library.

This could be the beginning of that. I think these companies are starting to figure out that running streaming video is expensive, and it only pays off if you can get to 9 digits of subscribers.

Looking forward to Peacock, Paramount+, HBO Now, Disney+, and ESPN+ to all fuck off and die.

Let's play a quick game of causality, shall we?

1. someone buys property and goes through all the work to have someone design a house to put on it, gets permits to build, gets a construction loan.
2. some jackass puts a tariff on Canadian lumber, where somewhere between 1/5 and 1/3 of softwood lumber used to build houses comes from Canada.

You now get a choice between:
1. pay for more expensive US lumber
2. pay for more expensive Canadian lumber due to jackass tariffs imposed for no fucking reason at all
3. delay your construction while you wait for prices to come down, or start over at the design phase to use different construction materials, get re-permitted, etc.

You also conveniently leave out what happens when 30% of the supply becomes more expensive - do you think the competition isn't going to raise prices to parity and pocket the margin?

Tell us you know nothing about this, without directly telling us you know nothing about this.

1. OpenAI wants to build a ridiculous amount of data centers, using a ridiculous amount of GPUs.
2. Nvidia wants to sell a ridiculous amount of GPUs.
3. OpenAI runs into a funding wall
4. Nvidia gives them loan guarantees to build data centers, where they will be getting back a significant amount of that loan for their own products, while charging interest on the whole lot

Sounds like OpenAI is looking to get purchased by Nvidia at severe discount when they can't pay the loan.

Yes, but it cannot sustain a fission-powered chain reaction any more, due to the "neutron poisons" present in the fuel assemblies after being in the reactor for many months.

Reactors run on a neutron economy. And if you have more things absorbing neutrons that aren't named "U235" then you have a neutron deficit, and the fuel comes out.

This is very basic.

From the text, I believe the point was to call you a "bitter old cunt" a few times, while being a bitter cunt themselves.

But that analysis is limited to the context at hand. There may have been another motivation, but it isn't clear from the text provided.

Perhaps they were shooting for irony?

The reactors at Hanford "made electricity as well as nuclear bombs" too. And massive amounts of caustic radioactive shit that is stored in aging leaky tanks, waiting to be vitrified as that's the only use for it.

There is a reason why the UK shut down the nuclear reprocessing of Magnox fuel - IT'S TOO FUCKING EXPENSIVE.

Take away the bombs, and these reactors are not economical to operate. End of story.

So you are fine with electricity being made at any price, and have no problem with the nuclear weapon proliferation that comes along with literally every waste reprocessing technique there is.

This is why you don't understand the problem. Consumers want cheap electricity, and LESS nuclear weapons.

Something you are conveniently leaving out while trying to blame politicians for not wanting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (I mean, really?):

Waste recycling is INSANELY EXPENSIVE, and no commercial operator is going to increase their fuel cost to run reprocessed fuel over new fuel assemblies just for the warm fuzzy feelings.

Unless they are required to by regulation or law, they're buying the cheapest fuel assemblies they can, because they want to actually show a profit.

This should be obvious. Do you go looking for the most expensive fuel you can find with hand-waving "it's better for the environment!!" marketing, or do you go to the place charging less money for fuel?

So you are a big fan of letting "perfect" be the enemy of "better."

That makes you kind of stupid. Please tell me what the perfect high-output energy generation technique is that produces absolutely no waste, and doesn't have a problem with periodic outage due to external forces that cannot be controlled (i.e. wind doesn't blow, clouds, winter)

Nuclear is better than coal and petroleum. Period. And this advancement of waste handling potentially solves a problem.

Not sure why:
A. you are talking about the United States at all, since this is a Canadian tech, that works with the waste coming out of Canadian reactor designs.
B. why you think that a technology that reduces the "highly toxic waste for which nobody knows how to get rid of" is something to shitpost
C. why you think people are just picking up chunks of Plutonium and dealing with heavy metal toxicity.

Anything that reduces the size and scope of radioactive reactor waste is a good thing, as long as it's not a pathway to weapons material extraction (i.e. proliferation concerns) - notice the summary says exactly jack shit about that.

Also note that chemical extraction of reactor fuel isn't exactly new - we've been doing it since the 1940s to get all the Plutonium we currently have, using a process called PUREX (Plutonium / Uranium Extraction)