Your name shows up right up under the green comment title bar.

So, you don't need to sign them like that.

No. You wouldn't. But it does sound edgy and cool on the intarwebz though, doesn't it?

...they're NOT closing anything in relation to this announcement. In fact, had someone clicked on the article they wouldn't have to scan too far to find this:

"Texas’s power grid operator has stressed the need for more electricity resources in the region to power oil and gas drilling operations."

So no, they're not closing fossil fuel plants in favor of this...and the reason they're building this is BECAUSE of fossil fuel efforts.

...and since they are, isn't the simultaneous raising of the fees for the same service akin to price fixing? How is this NOT reviewable as a possible antitrust violation?

...writing ad copy for GEICO, Progressive and Farmers Insurance. Advertising where the level of insipid doesn't appear to matter one atom will be it's economic sweet spot.

Actually, right now there is kind of a scandal going on with Reddit's ad platform.

They did allow ads to be targeted to individual subreddits and the spend per click was actually really affordable. However, they recently changed that model and, to say they botched the roll out of the new system would be an attempt at Olympic levels of understatement. Advertisers had a cap on spend per period...the new platform absolutely ignored the cap and people were getting astronomical advertising bills for impressions. That and the cost per either click or impression skyrocketed. The typical increase I've been reading in posts is at 500% at a minimum. The Reddit ads team is also notoriously unresponsive and lately the mods on the subreddit for ads (https://www.reddit.com/r/redditads/) has been censoring some posts (according to examples posted by users).

About the only good thing that might come out of this entire debacle is someone might get the bright idea for a "How To NOT" guide using Reddit's new ad scheme as the shining star example.

...does there need to be an "answer" to the US GPS? Is there something the EU member want to do that the current GPS network cannot or declines to do?

"C/C++ must seem like nuclear power plants run by squirrels". Thank you for my daily chortle. :D

We usually don't feel the need to.

And I'll bet that you're intentionally missing the obvious...that the word I typed in originally got changed to "within". The obvious word selection there and which matches the point of the post would be "without".

However, I'm a fairly smart person and don't think that even a simple changed word (that I imagine most other casual readers realized was a obvious typo) will change your condescension.

You can believe you're right but clearly the question isn't settled so claiming some false sense of superior understanding or intellect is childish and, frankly, tiring.

You cannot restrict the speech offered by a radio or television both of whom often disseminate their message in a pre-recorded fashion via their chosen mediums simply BECAUSE they're not a human being at the moment the message is delivered. It's pretty much identical here.

You can choose to sit or stand while you digest the obvious parallels there.

I think I'm a little closer to understanding than you are. The bot works within the human directly controlling it. Your megaphone and pencil do not. They do not operate independently of you. The bot does. The issue isn't the medium or the technology but the concept that the message can be received and then, via an programming algorithm, restated in various forums and venues. Your pencil nor your megaphone have that ability. They do not disseminate your message without your immediate and direct control. The bot does.

Would a scheduled tweet or status update delivered by an automated process be considered a bot? If so then, yes, a bot has a right to free speech as it is an extension of the speech that a person wishes to express. The fact that it's not delivered, in person (so to say), by a human being doesn't abrogate the rights of that speech to be heard as that was the intent of the speaker in the first place.

Really, no different than the delayed reading of a printed newspaper editorial. The medium and method of delivery are irrelevant.

Of course, how "bot" is defined is what's pertinent here. Most of what people today would call "bots" are really just prerecorded messages where the automation isn't the speech itself but the means by which it is delivered.

Did pretty much the same when the kids were living at home. Once they moved off to college I considered dumping Comcast TV altogether and keep their cable internet. Turns out, if I dropped TV my bill would INCREASE something like $15/mo.

Best solution was to scale it all the way back to basic cable (local channels and no fluff). Picked up and tried both Hulu and YouTube TV for a time. Liked them both but found we simply didn't watch much network TV. Dropped them both, went with Netflix and Amazon video (which we already had through our Prime account) and added HBO to that (which, honestly, I also don't watch all that much).

What cinches it for me is the absolute abysmal quality of network television programming. I can hardly watch a few minutes of any of the "popular" shows without feeling like my brain is dying. Unfunny, not entertaining and chock full of political slant (that shit is everywhere these days).

It would seem television companies learned nothing from watching what happened to the music industry.

That would depend on where you measure "Earth" from. The middle or the edge.

...was pretty damned impressive. Training sims will be a lot more effective anyway.