Let's assume that's accurate, 1500 / 30/month = 50 months, so in 4 years you've earned back the hookup. How long will the fibre last? 20+ years? Let's assume a 20-year replacement, that would be 240-months, if you use the low end of $30/month, that would be $7200. What is Comcast worried about? They didn't plan, they didn't budget, they stole public investment to build out these Fibre networks, and now crying they're busted.

I know but the fact major sites have to be pulled offline, and need multiple days to update is a major issue. They just released the updated, sure, but to apply it should be quick, fast, and nearly effortless. It doesn't just apply to PHP, there is a general stand-off nature to processing updates and keeping things updated. I've had this argument on Slashdot, where people swear you don't touch what isn't broken, you never redesign, you never process updates. All the arguments I'm still speaking out against, in some paraphrased form or another.

~10 years ago I worked for a small startup. Back then the servers were outdated to a comically stupid and horrible extent, so I updated everything, modernized, and got everyone on the safe version back then. I know, those servers have not been updated since I left, and, the product that company made leveraged PHP, I also know, the PHP version never got updated, and, won't get updated. Why? The owner has the philosophy of never update, never re-engineer, never do proactive, useful, modernization. Of course take all of this in a paraphrased form, so don't quote me literally, but, I can also access their software, it's online, so I know they're running the 10-year-old code base.

I have mentioned that company on Slashdot, and I also know for a fact, they disabled the vast majority of security on the servers. I know that since they got hacked (years ago), accused me, then argued me the security was a waste of time. The same staff is still working their, and their head of IT is a fraud, not just unqualified, and incompetent, a complete and total fraud. I don't think he could pass a grade 12 Skills Canada competition, and he's acting as head of IT, and their CTO. I left the company ~10-years ago, after work there for 2-years, and that's an entirely different story.

I agree, it's not difficult to update unless you're relying on some broken functionality in an older version. Which is why you need to keep systems updated.

Okay PHP has a critical flaw, but, why is your PHP outdated, or so difficult to update? This is an issue I hear about frequently, usually in the form of: “Why are you updating X, didn't we just do that?”. Yes, we just updated X from 20 to 21, and 21 to 22, but, I do that, so I'm on the latest stable and safe release. I have seen this nonsense to often where someone refuses updates, then an issue emerges, and they can't update, since it would break everything. This is also the reason I argue against keeping everything locked on legacy. “It's works so don't touch it”, is the equivalent of, “It works now, until it's too dangerous to keep online, but then we can't update it.”.

I just spent 3+ weeks updating a system, and was told multiple times it didn't need to be done, and I was wasting time and resources. This morning, that project released a major notification of a serious flaw, and we're already on the newer version which is safe. The real problem was never PHP, or Node.js, or X (not Twitter), it was the refusal to update and keep systems updated.

Wrong.

Apple just waits until their Display Suppliers (generally Samsung for OLED) get their shit together with quality, reliability, brightness, and cost; then they jump in and start integrating the (now worthwhile) Technology.

Slamdung, OTOH, is more than happy to sell barely-working Prototypes to willing masses of Stupids for generation after generation while they perfect the technology.

Who wants That?

Larger OLED Displays were technically challenging to manufacure consistently for quite awhile; so Apple stayed away. They still have some display life downsides compared with LCD; but the advantages now solidly outweigh those issues.

Apple is also being pushed into OLED for MacBooks because of the desire for a Touchscreen. An LCD Touchscreen MacBook would be far too thick and heavy.

And the Touchscreen MacBook had to wait for a suitable Finger-Sized UI; which we now have, thanks to iPadOS 26.in fact, I’ll bet that Touchscreen Macs will have a Touchscreen Mode; where the regular macOS UI will Page-Flip out of the way, revealing a UI similar to what was debuted in iPadOS 26 for Finger-Use. I have a really hard time believing Apple did all that UI work just for iPadOS.

No Prison for Macs.

So STFU, Hater.

No Walled Garden on Macs.

So STFU, Hater.

I oh so want an Earth: Final Conflict “Global”.

But a Touch Interface doesn’t work so well with a roll up screen. . .

Is that where Musk's $44bn from Twitter go? Spun out of SpaceX, who bought it from xAI, who bought it from X using money funnelled from Tesla who in turn are subsidised by sales to SpaceX?

This is not a chicken and egg problem. It's an analysis problem. SpaceX built rockets for reasons started by government incentives and prizes to get new rockets designed. Once their rockets were designed customers also came flooding in. They'd be doing perfectly fine without Starlink. Starlink came almost a decade after SpaceX's first launch and the first Starlink constellation went up 2 years after SpaceX was already handling commercial and government contracts using second hand (reused) boosters.

Starlink on the other hand needed a very cheap launch vehicle to be viable and it wasn't even a conceptual idea before that happened. We very much know which came first.

EA has no money to invest. Thanks to a leveraged buyout all they have is a huge debt to serve. They will keep doing this by milking what they have while rapidly selling off or cost cutting their way to bankruptcy.

Normally you just post about how you don't understand what statistics mean. It's refreshing to see you have no idea about history either. I mean there are actually "movies" you could cite which would relate to what you are talking about, but the two you chose are not them. Try again. At least you're on the right continent though.

The cops had nothing to do with that. For the general populace that change was pushed a lot by Facebook which at the time pushed its service as a way of connecting to real people at your college. But even then you have rose coloured glasses on. Remember the advice? I think the advice came *after* the internet of old. These days very few people use their real name online unless you have a public facing personality and that "blue check" is a source of income for you. On the other hand if you look to Slashdot UIDs in the sub 10000 you'll find a significant number of them actually do use their actual real name.

I remember the early days of the internet. Everyone (including me) was very naïeve about the concept of privacy and security.

Sorry but no. Phishing and fraud existed before the "normies" did, and there are a significant number of very stupid and naïve tech gurus out in the world as well whose idea of privacy and security amount to "Who? Never met them." I mean the early internet by design considered no aspect of anonymity, privacy, or security.

Take the rose coloured glasses off.

Quit? Oh man you should have lived in Europe. You'd probably have been able to retire on the payout the courts would have given you.