I totally agree.
I was boring people with the need for fiber constantly.
The logic that 2GB listeners would spout made me quite sad, think "wireless is good enough and you don't pay for cables".
What I mean about winning the argument is that the Ruddian fiber network didn't get built.
I really, really wish it was different.

I'm not sure it's that simple.
When the NBN (internet in Australia) was being proposed for Australia, Netflix and other streaming weren't really available.
Uncle Rupert had FOXTEL (cable network) and the conservatives in his control.
The arguments for a fully optic fibre network were to future proof internet access and to allow Australia to compete in the new information age.
The conservatives said the current usage didn't justify the cost etc.. etc...
The conservatives won the argument
A couple of years later; Netflix comes to Australia, and everyone's usage goes up.
Aussies whine about their crappy internet all the time, it's not that bad but it could have been a lot better.
Maybe the US Streaming companies should have been banned.
One could make an argument based on cultural grounds.
There is an argument that the internet would be a lot faster for more utilitarian purposes.
I'm being fairly hypocritical, as I love Netflix disney+ youtube etc..
But I can see why if a foreign tank drives up main street, the town may want the tank owners to pay for some of the damages.

Boom!. That made me smile :-)

I think Twitter will be giving Musk all the data.
Don't know how he will process all of the data.
https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-twitter-inc-technology-business-944eb9df626641580052dd050cfddeb2

I still don't know what to make of Musk.
He reminds me of Harriman from The Man Who Sold the Moon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
Yeah, I'm old.

Has anyone read: https://sec.report/Document/00... ?
It's the Twitter share holder thingy for the merger. I had a quick look and noticed the point about due diligence being over. I don't know what it means, but it does read that the Twitter thought that due diligence was over.

Later on April 21, 2022, Mr. Musk publicly disclosed that he and Parent had obtained commitment letters for approximately $46.5 billion in financing to fund the proposed acquisition, including

1. (1) a debt commitment letter providing for an aggregate of $13 billion in various secured and unsecured debt financing commitments;
2. (2) a debt commitment letter providing for an aggregate of $12.5 billion in margin loan commitments (which commitments were subsequently reduced to $6.25 billion, as described below); and
3. (3) an equity commitment letter providing for a $21 billion equity financing by Mr. Musk to Parent (which commitment was subsequently increased to $27.25 billion, as described below).

The equity financing commitment did not include third party beneficiary rights permitting Twitter to enforce Mr. Musk’s equity financing commitment in connection with a potential transaction. Mr. Musk also disclosed that his acquisition proposal was no longer subject to the completion of financing and business due diligence. The debt commitment letters referenced drafts of agreements and documents providing for a tender offer for our common stock that had been shared with the lenders party to the debt commitment letters, but that had not been shared with Twitter.

Basically: stability leads to greater risk taking which leads to instability.

'Boom Bust Boom' explains it. For Monty Python fans. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3...

Hyman_Minsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Minsky_moment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I agree.
Any society runs on an element of trust. The more complex the society the more trust is needed.
From the food we eat, the delivery distribution networks to the credo we use to pay for it.

Normally the fact that the actor's identity is known usually prevents such malicious attacks.
Imagine the actor is a person who is known, in good standing, and authorised and then blows up their customers' property, deliberately.
Would you buy that brand again?
But then again I wouldn't believe people would use javascript to write servers. *&-J

Reputation, reputation, reputation! O, I have lost my reputation, I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial!
The Immortal Bard

Well not all services, but here is a list of about 200 they have.
https://killedbygoogle.com/

So if the service is not core to google, there is a reasonable chance they will kill it.

Which I don't think is unreasonable and is probably the price on innovation.

What version of Linux are you using?
Linus Torvalds has a AMD only setup, so I'm a bit surprised.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Linus Torvalds: On Nvidia

For those old enough to remember the AI_winter ;see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .
I'm not sure that the short/medium term expectations of returns lends itself to this sort of research.
*B-)

1. Epic knowingly and purposely broke their Licencing agreement with Apple.
2. Epic had a marketing campaign + lawyers at the ready.
3. There are better phones for gaming than Apple makes. https://www.techadvisor.co.uk/...
4. There are better computers for gaming than those that Apple currently make.
5. Security is not a joke.
6. Allowing random payment channels; is not good for control (but is great for competition)
7. Trojan malware libraries are not unheard of. example CamScanner, Xavier

8. I use Linux Mint on my Desktop
9. I have never played Fornite. my reflects are shocking.
10. I use an iPhone.

So what does this imply?
11. (1 + 2) -> Epic is not a trusted Apple Developer
12. (11 + 6)-> Libraries and services by Epic cannot be trusted on the Apple Platform.
13. (3 + 4 + 12) -> Epic makes lots of money elsewhere

Epic's Lawyer know what they are doing and they must be aware of all the implications.
I can't see how Epic will win this, Apple has more at stake than just the revenue.
But then again it is a crazy world, and all Epic's lawyer must have a game plan.

*8~)