"Enhanced." But for who's benefit?

Ever thought about moving the gaming PC? :-)

But seriously, there are cheap wireless KVM solutions for 1080p, and slightly less cheap 4K HDMI wireless extenders. I haven't seen any 4K + USB, but they probably exist. But I'd imagine anything wireless is going to be artifacty.

If you can run a single Ethernet cable in a crawlspace or attic, you can get a KVM extender for $153, and that presumably would be a clean, near-zero-latency HDMI and USB repeater (because it's probably just a bunch of level shifters).

Why would you use Steam Link for a TV and waste precious network bandwidth and suffer compression artifacts and lag just to avoid running an HDMI cable? Even if it is in different rooms, $90 plus a point-to-point Cat5 cable will solve the problem permanently without all the hassles associated with using software workarounds.

Steam Link makes perfect sense when you're talking about headsets that are mobile, but streaming to a fixed device like a TV set sounds like a niche use case that would be better served with dedicated hardware.

Yes, there is a new contract created every month. Feel free to quote Italian conditions, but in the US a contract requires consideration, which occurs on a monthly basis.

In any case, it doesn't affect the ethics, and Netflix gives ample time for a customer to cancel renewals.

Now if they were to engineer in some harmaline/telepathine and put it into a tomato you could make some very special marinara sauce.

Why stop there? Most modern cuisines use tomatoes, giving you lots of possibilities. How about a adult-grade version of catsup or salsa? Or, if you prefer, tex-mex chili with a new type of kick to it?

If by simple, you mean simplistic, then yeah. What you're forgetting is that every time a bomb kills someone's mother, father, brother, sister, wife, son, or daughter, another America hater is born. So there's likely to be an endless supply of irrational leaders, so long as they are put into power by someone bombing the previous leader along with random military targets.

The only regime changes that are ever really positive long-term are regime changes led by the people of a country against their leaders. All other regime changes are statistically more likely to make things worse than better.

Let me restate that. Most of what makes neighborhood streets dangerous is vehicles and pedestrians using the same space at similar times.

Who has priority is largely uninteresting, because ultimately if a car hits you, you're still probably dead whether you had the right of way or not.

Ostensibly, sure, if you got rid of all the cars, streets would be safer for pedestrians, but they would also be a huge waste of space, because pedestrians don't need huge roads to walk. Roads exist principally for cars. The fact that pedestrians have to cross them is just an unfortunate design constraint that's hard to avoid cheaply, and giving pedestrians priority is mostly just feel-good policymaking that doesn't solve any of the fundamental problems.

The only truly safe way to share the space is to ensure that pedestrians aren't in the road when cars are. The best approach, at least in cities, is second-floor walkways, so that pedestrians and cars are never vertically at the same traffic layer. A slightly less optimal, but still reasonable approach is to give pedestrians a separate walk cycle in which the entire intersection is theirs. Pedestrians have priority during that cycle, and cars have priority the rest of the time, and as long as everyone follows the rules, nobody gets hurt.

But none of those solutions work for neighborhood streets, which is why the presence of pedestrians on neighborhood streets without sidewalks and proper traffic control for pedestrians results in the roads being inherently more dangerous than other streets.

Nope. It simply renews every month (and that's a convenience, not a contract) unless you cancel. There is no contract beyond a month.

Sure. Just a reminder, back in the old days, before the NLRB forced owners and unions to negotiate in good faith... Factories and warehouses burned to the ground during labor disputes, people were beaten and killed.

And for all of you out there who think that that's exaggerated, take a look at the Ludlow Massacre with its body count of approximately 21, mostly women and children.

>you cant just unilaterally change a contract even with "30 days notice"

Whoosh. If the contract only lasts 30 days, you can change the terms for a future contract.

Attacking nuclear facilities is at least moderately rational. Various countries have done that half a dozen times over the past few years. Attacking drone manufacturing and storage might also be reasonable.

But...

What does an illegal decapitation attack have to do with nukes? Do you think the new supreme leader is going to somehow be more rational than the last one? There is a fundamental difference between going after clear military targets to prevent Iran from developing weapons that threaten their neighbors and going after civilian and government targets.

No, they will keep doing this until they are a nuclear power. They've seen what denuclearization did for Ukraine, and it's hard to argue with their logic. Having nuclear weapons is a strong deterrent to invaders, who realize that the response could be swift and devastating at a scale that countries never recover from.

It's unclear what other things they will do at that point. We can only speculate. Mind you, I don't like the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran, but again, I see no evidence that anything happening over there right now is going to change anything, or even delay it enough to matter.

Is anything that the U.S. government is doing right now going to change that reality? The way you prevent them from laying mines is the same way that you prevent oil from leaving Iran — bombing ships the second they leave the harbor. If you're not willing to start with a full air and naval blockade, you've already failed, and the only thing continuing the war can do is increase the number of ways that you've failed.

My AI says there aren't enough em dashes, so you're probably both wrong.

At 3 A.M.? Probably. At 3 P.M.? Unlikely.

Most of what makes neighborhood streets dangerous is pedestrians. After dark, this concern goes way down. At some point, it becomes effectively zero, and the only thing increasing the risk is the number of driveway entrances, and in particular, blind driveway entrances.

And, of course, the presence of small children who behave erratically. In general, you should drive those speeds whenever you see evidence that small children are playing or are likely to be playing anyway, e.g. when driving past parks before sunset, when you see small children walking down the sidewalk while tossing a ball back and forth, etc.

And when there's no evidence of children, it doesn't make sense to slow down nearly as much.

Cyclists and pedestrians are also a big risk. They often behave in unpredictable ways. Also, if you pull out in front of cyclists, this is a very bad thing. But all of those factors are also highly timing-dependent. When there are no cyclists nearby, a road can be 45 MPH, but when cyclists are nearby, you need to slow down. Drivers need to have the situational awareness to realize that driving at the speed limit is not always safe, because the alternative is for the speed limits to be set so low that they are always safe, which results in miserably slow roads.

I've heard of neighborhoods pushing for 5 MPH (8 KPH) speed limits. When cyclists and even some pedestrians would be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit, you're doing it wrong. Even at 15MPH, there's only a 9% chance of an accident seriously hurting a pedestrian even if you don't slow down at all, so the benefit would only come from drivers who are completely not paying attention, and would likely be cancelled out by a higher number of drivers zoning out and not paying attention, in which case the chances of pulling out in front of a cyclist (who realistically won't be going that slowly) goes up. No free lunch. But that doesn't keep people who don't understand statistics from saying "If 25 (residential default) is good, 5 is better."

Forget about the law. Ethically, Netflix is in the right. Someone signs up and pays for a month. They get a month of service. That continues month to month. At some point, Netflix tells them "it will cost more next month, if you don't want to pay more, you can simply cancel and not pay." There's no force or deceit. Continuing to pay and then coming back later and suing Netflix is an attempt at theft, plain and simple. The law is unethical.

In theory, sure. In practice, the FTC regulates things like this about as well as the CPUC regulates electric rates. Regulatory capture and bending to industry pressure has become the default at this point. Right to repair laws are really the only solution. Such laws distribute the enforcement responsibility by potentially enabling random annoyed DAs to prosecute or class-action attorneys to sue, depending on whether they are written as civil or criminal law.