Hmm, let's check:
Big Sur
Monterey
Ventura
Sonoma
Sequoia
Tahoe
No, no, you're totally right, this has everything to do with McDonalds as some kind of appeasement to Darth Cheeto rather than referencing some location in California. Well spotted!
Producing a lot of power for a few seconds is one thing, maintaining it for any significant length of time is quite another when you only have sunlight to rely on.
Do you actually need to do it for extended periods, though? All you have to do it make it intermittently unreliable for a few minutes at a time in order to potentially make it unusable in a war zone (if your GPS guided bombs/cruise missiles have a high probability of going off target, you're not going to use them and fall back on laser guided bombs / inertially guided cruise missiles, for example).
It sounds like at least at some point, Donut Labs genuinely believed that CT Coatings actually had a revolutionary battery tech, and would eventually be able to supply it to them, per leaked emails between the companies, and maybe the initial fakery by Donut was just trying to bridge the gap until CT Coatings delivered what they promised.
Err... "we were only defrauding people until we could figure out how to make the snake oil actually work" is still fraud. No amount of handwaving gets you passed that.
No one is using well-known ports for anything legitimate that isn't the associated service. Anything spun up on e.g. 110 that isn't a POP server is going to inherently be questionable.
The people who block ports pointlessly just because they've been abused in the ancient past are idiots too.
You'll want to amplify on this, because blocking a well-known port for an insecure protocol has no downsides. Nothing legitimate is going to be spun up on e.g. 110, why would you leave it open vs blocking it?
Once they do that, click activity will increase exponentially and they won't be able to afford to keep it up
No. Everyone won't. It's frankly a ton of work to do the tracking and another ton of work to process it and do anything about it, and there's not a lot of benefit to it to be had without revealing you're doing it - this will backfire. They are trying to normalize not having privacy, because that is kinda Meta's specialty, but I don't think it will catch on, even at Meta, in the long term. They'll lose too many good people and they'll have to take it back.
As O'Brien passed the telescreen a thought seemed to strike him. He stopped, turned aside and pressed a switch on the wall. There was a sharp snap. The voice had stopped.
Julia uttered a tiny sound, a sort of squeak of surprise. Even in the midst of his panic, Winston was too much taken aback to be able to hold his tongue.
'You can turn it off!' he said.
'Yes,' said O'Brien, 'we can turn it off. We have that privilege.'
Porque no las dos?
I don't understand what the endgame is supposed to be for all of this. The numbers being thrown around don't make any sense at all--trillions of dollars in spending chasing billions of dollars in revenue looks insane and even worse than the dotcom era.
There's a meme out there that I can't help but agree with: "The reason RAM prices went up 4x is that a massive amount of not-yet-manufactured memory was bought with money that doesn't really exist to be put into GPUs that haven't been made yet, to be installed in data centers that haven't been built, powered by infrastructure that may never exist, to satisfy demand that isn't actually there, in order to generate profits that are mathematically impossible."
We need to make it more difficult, if not impossible for tracking to be automated by private entities.
Short of simply outlawing the collection of this kind of data (which is problematic in the US), that genie is out of the bottle and is never going back in. You don't even need license plates, just access to enough cameras. It isn't exactly hard these days to track e.g. a blue 2008 Honda Civic through a well-covered area, and coverage is filling in by the day. Things like supermarket loyalty cards, credit card transactions, property tax records, etc, can answer the "who's doing the driving" part.
Ever growing automation is going to make for nice searchable databases. Which surely will never, ever, ever, be used inappropriately by those with access to them.
That lack of nuclear weapons in use is evidence of the control.
This is the most "correlation vs causation" quote ever. If you were in any kind of position of authority related to nuclear weapons, it would be Jurassic Park levels of hubris.
It's just that the entire YouTube is appallingly bad.
A lot of the audio production in individual videos is really bad. This isn't anything to do with YouTube per se, not their compression algorithms or other features. A lot of YouTubers have absolutely no concept of microphone placement, of using audio compression, of reducing background noise. All of which are things which will drastically affect audio quality and the ability of a speech-to-text model to create subtitles.
It would be nice if YouTube would normalize all the uploaded videos to one set standard. Note I'm not suggesting that they compress the videos as that might change the intended presentation of professional audio productions. I just mean peak-finding normalization which could be implemented losslessly and without breaking existing video links.
Having said that, when I look at my own channel - and I am not claiming to have great audio; I have a host which would destroy a lavalier microphone in mere seconds. YouTube's subtitling is really good. It automatically switches between English and French and Hebrew, and even with a fair bit of background noise (welding, grinding, cooking, crowd noise, music) it generally gets the text correct. So I don't know what the original complaint is, except that it's not perfect. Well, guess what, neither is human hearing. How about that famous Jimi Hendrix line, "Excuse me while I kiss this guy."
Look, I'm predisposed to be on the side of the farmers rather than Monsanto, but claiming "deep pockets" is the reason these lawsuits turned out the way they did is absurd. See Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 569 U.S. 278 (2013), and Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34 for the actual reasons for the lawsuits.
Further, Monsanto has explicitly declared that they will not engage in the behavior that you are saying is it issue here: "We do not exercise our patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means." They're certainly capable of going back on their promises, of course, but an innocent farmer would be able to use that statement in their defense... unless this was more than "pollen that came from a neighboring farm."
Monsanto is a shit company that does shit things. Shit on them (rightfully) for that, not the things that are made up or taken out of context.
Swiss Dual Income No Kids Robinson.
A rock store eventually closed down; they were taking too much for granite.
