Wrong, it's a slight of hand. This is not about individual cameras, this is about the network that uses all cameras together to follow you no matter what you do, no matter where you go, people shouldn't have a government that follows their every step by using AI and networked devices. If this was about individual cameras you would have a point, it is not, it is unreasonable to allow a government to exist that creates a panopticon of this scale, citizens shouldn't feel like they are inside a prison and the warden is watching.

It's not "weird", he just couldn't accept that he put his selfish greed over "benefitting human civilization and knowledge."

He spent years building a very useful skill set, then chose to use it to generate ad revenue for his employer. His choice, he could have focused on "middle out compression."

Mission accomplished?

If I am presenting material I know well, I can "split" my attention, to do some quality control. One half of me goes on lecturing, while the other half is evaluating the presentation. Speaking clearly and loud enough? Too many ums and ahs? Looking at the students enough? Is the board work neat enough? Etc.

I don't do this often, because it is a really weird feeling and shifting back into just one "me" is a strange lurch.

I fondly remember an article he wrote mocking the gui interfaces that were becoming so popular back then, he clinched his mockery in a story about a 'lost tribe' that was found on an uncharted Polynesian island, and they did everything as if the lived in a GUI interface, moving a pointer around to do things, etc.

I also remember when the first iPhone came out, he had his table full of tech pundits/execs, and he calls out "who has an iPhone?" And one person throws their new iPhone on the table and John picked it up, looked at it and started laughing.

The owner asked what was so funny? John said "do you know how hard apple engineers worked to get this phone so thin? And what was the first thing you did? You ran out and got a case to make it twice as thick!"

I'll miss him

in an unregulated market (what consumers need), new businesses are able to create new competition if there is money to be saved for consumers.

The issue is excessive wave motion (hurricane, tsunami, etc), overwhelming the generator and forcing it into a "survival mode" that suspends generation temporarily.

You are really trying to argue that we haven't invested in wind and solar power research? Really?

We (at least in the US) have subsidized if not outright financed billions and billions of dollars into researching, developing, manufacturing, and installing wind and solar power for the last two decades.

FTFY

It was the Anti- nuclear lobby that fought it in Germany

And

The certification regards strength, reliability, and safety - it doesn't make it a "proven technology" or "financially viable" - the technology may be both, but the government certificate itself doesn't do either.

Lucrative government contracts?

There was no "tens of thousands of actions trying to probe (the) site for weaknesses all at once" - you literally made that up, access was gained by stolen credentials, as noted in the very first sentence of TFS.

Did you mix this part:

Stolen credentials can get you into some very secure sites via their publicly-exposed API...

That's like saying your home security sucks because the valet at the restaurant you ate at last night made a copy of your house key and broke into your house...

in the free market businesses form and compete for consumer money with other businesses, it is the competition that is pro consumer. Unions, like any other political formation, exists to protect special interests, preventing businesses from competing to the best of their ability and pushing prices up - anti consumer.

Businesses are pro-consumer by definition, unless they are government subsidized. Being anti-union (as I am) is being as pro-consumer as possible. Unions push prices up, consumers want lower prices, unions are anti-consumer.