Ironically there are treatments that show efficacy but they range between not FDA approved and illegal.

You can go to Mexico or the Caribbean for some of them (or find underground psychiatrists).

Getting lots of regular sleep, exercise, and going ketogenic can dramatically slow progression but there is a tau prion aspect that is difficult to halt. Lots of Omega-3's can keep your astrocytes healthy.

Some evidence supports ultrasound treatment but it's probably the higher harmonics which are not well characterized or even understood outside a few labs (ASU, et. al.).

Use protection as the tau prions don't stay in the brain.

We deserve better psyops.

If the reporter had read Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent they could have done a better job but let's not give them any ideas.

BBC has always been in the business of narrative construction in service of the powerful to control the population.

And also Benny Hill.

The mid range of the standard distribution thinks particles are real physical objects.

One end of the curve thinks that sounds like nonsense - the other end knows they're mathematical abstractions with no intent to claim a physical description.

Some people are working on a physical model (bounded surface area / Pauli exclusion) but in the odd world of Mathematical Physics the physicists Interested in the physical are sneered at.

It's reminiscent of "that bitch is so ugly" heard from the mids about the prettiest girl in the room.

"You, boy, what's your business model?"

"We sue IBM hoping they'll pay us to go away."

(n.b. econ majors - this is not productivity)

For an SMS based backdoor, no. It seems these devices are designed to use cellular connections (which makes sense since traffic cameras will be installed in remote locations).

And then most firewalls focus on inbound connections, but often do nothing to prevent a compromised device from making outbound connections. SMS could easily be used to initiate an outbound connection.

I have a mug from a conference Startpage sponsored about a decade ago.

It's been in my Firefox at least since then. Did I add it manually?

I am actually surprised this is new!

I guess Mozilla was being paid to not do this? Ages ago we had Altavista, Excite, Yahoo, and even Google as options. I really had no idea how deep the anticompetitive tying had become.

BTW, if you want to search for anything counterculture Yandex Search will have it on the first page while the Western engines will gaslight you into believing you misremembered something.

Even 20 pages deep.

Is this different than the brain state when watching a movie or play?

"Suspension of Disbelief" is an ancient concept.

Not to defend the technology but the summary sounds like confirmation of the null hypothesis.

The Play Store shows it as unavailable for my LineageOS devices. Available on my stock tablets and GrapheneOS devices.

A video player more strict than banking apps. OK, China, that'll help in your infowar.

The problem is when the genuinely useful features take a back seat to user-hostile features like shoving ads in your face, or vehicle functionality which is present but disabled unless you pay more to activate it etc.

These anti features become associated with the technology, and cause users to fondly remember their older simpler cars that didn't have these negative things.

There are also useful features like navigation that are either poorly implemented, or users just don't know how to use them. This also puts users off.

Another thing that puts users off is things that break and cause unrelated functionality to stop working (like the printer/scanner combos that wont scan if there's no ink in the printer etc)...

Or newer functionality that's now mandated by law, but older vehicles get a pass. A good example here would be ABS. If you have a modern vehicle and your ABS fails the vehicle still drives perfectly well and is still safer overall than an older vehicle with no ABS, but it will fail its annual inspection for this and you might be faced with a costly repair. If you're driving an older vehicle that never had ABS at all then you get a free pass.
While i can understand the safety reasons here, this annoys people especially older drivers.

We seem to be in a parallel to Rural Electrification now.

If someone lives five miles from the nearest connection, currently on 100A AC and POTS, is the limited budget better spent on running five miles of fiber or dropping off a satellite terminal?

They'll be going from either 3Mbps DSL to 300Mbps satellite or 800Mbps fiber.

If we had unlimited money I'd say fiber almost everywhere. But that isn't realistic.

The flip side is some of these rulings which ought to be applied to edge cases may well be applied to areas where FTTH is entirely reasonable and achievable.

Government almost always sucks at applying broad rules without subtlety at both the median and the far sigmas.

I live in an area where welfare broadband is offered for about $15/mo for about 60Mbps. Frankly I could live with that almost all the time. I do download some massive datasets every few months but my smoothed average is probably 2% of my max.

But those welfare programs exist because society has decided that some Internet is required for participation so there is some responsibility to provide.

The bigger risk is probably dual-use dangers. Ukraine has been using Starlink for terrorist attacks and while Musk has said he cut them off the Russian FM has warned that Russia will take out the Starlink constellation if it continues because apparently it is.

So we don't run fiber and then Starlink goes away, and then what?

There are also ice storms, hurricanes, tornados, wildfires, etc. that can take out landines for months so having a few satellite terminals in an area would be more antifragile.

FCC is seemingly treating this as simple when it's complex.

I have to disagree, for several reasons. First off, file sizes just keep increasing. Instead of people thinking their televisions at home look great in "full 1080 HD resolution"? Now, everyone's moving to 4K TV, with 8K being the high-end offering. That means streaming television supporting those higher resolutions is going to use 4x to 8x the bandwidth it used to.

Second, any avid gamer knows how big the downloads have gotten for modern games. The regular updates they push out, alone, are typically 35GB to 350GB+ in size. Now, imagine you've got a family at home with at least 2 or 3 people playing online games on their machines. They don't want to have to wait 20-25 minutes to start playing every time it says an update is required first.

Beyond all of that, though? I've found fiber connections used in an office environment are handled a little differently than what people have at home. EG. I can start uploading 4 or 5 large archives to, say, Microsoft Azure cloud storage, right in the middle of the workday -- and nobody else using the office network even notices. That's largely because we have multi-thousand dollar routers in the office and they're properly configured to prioritize certain types of traffic like VoIP phone calls, and to throttle connections intelligently so everyone gets a fairly equal piece of the total connection "pie" as they work. It's not that reasonable to expect residential users to have similar setups, or to even know how to configure them.

My cable provider now offers 2GB download speed service, but it's problematic in the sense most people still have devices with wired Ethernet ports that only handle up to 1 gig. speeds. I have a pretty expensive Linksys Atlas mesh router at home (cost $850 or so for the 3 piece set, a few years back), and it doesn't have a port on it faster than 1 gig. for the cable modem to attach to.

Obviously, the provider is happy to supply their own combo modem/router to use but with a monthly cost attached.

But there's just not a good reason in 2026 to not make a least gigabit connections a standard offering. Nobody's "unfairly discriminating" against services like satellite with any of this. Those technologies have always been considered wireless alternatives to use when you're in too rural of an area to expect anything else. Invest in building out fiber networks and those techs will just become what you use when you're mobile.

> We have a massive shortage why is nobody stepping up to make more supply?

Look up some stuff instead of just commie ranting.

Apple is testing supply from an up-and-coming DRAM supplier in China. Hynix is working on converting old fabs into a smaller process to create more fast RAM. TSMC is building a fab in Arizona. Samsung is opening a fab in Texas next year.

> the big three can anytime they want drastically increase production within 6 months to a year

Tell me you've never been to a fab without telling me you've never been to a fab.

If they could double their capacity Altman would buy *that* too. At least presume that the greedy capitalists are greedy.

> Capitalism needs a referee and US dumbasses fired the ref.

How, precisely, did they accomplish this coup in China?

Also, why not move to China, Cuba, or North Korea? They have varying degrees of central planning that should take care of your needs. Nobody wants you to be unhappy.

Reenlisting is tougher since you already got your GI Bill and VA Benefits and such.

On a recent talk show a military guy was saying that DoD was instrumental in nationalizing the student loans under Obama.

They knew infinite money for school would jack up the price of school for everybody but unaffordable college is what drives people to the GI Bill and their recruiting was dragging ass after the last time a President lied us into war in the Middle East over made-up claims of weapons of mass destruction (and then promised to leave Iraq and close Gitmo).

Say what you want about TikTok but the kids all know about the scam now. They didn't even bother trying to convince the country this time.

Have we had a story here about the record-short procurement process last month for the new Draft management software?

Honestly? I think your last statement there is a key point that should receive a little more attention. It seems possible --- heck, even prudent -- for a person to question possible negative outcomes from mRNA vaccines, while still fully recognizing that it makes good sense to use one on an existing disease. Even in a nearly worst-case scenario? You're talking about cancer, which surely kills a person if not treated, vs a theoretical risk of some long-term problems from an mRNA vaccine (some of which even anti-vax types admit aren't showing up except in a certain percentage of vaccinated people).