The ONLY problem is that not everyone else has done so yet. Government shouldn't be allowed to tax income and profit.

Asking for it in a situation where a user would expect to have to enter it, so they won't find the request unusual or suspicious.

Sure. The reason for stupid ideas, like Lysenko, taking over is lack of competition, which is inherent to communism, In a capitalist system people are searching for ways to make money for themselves, so there are enough competing ideas being tried out with private money. If the money runs out before profits are made, the ideas stop. When government can keep subsidizing bad ideas they don't stop, they just keep getting bigger and more stupid.

It's not anywhere near one step away. Designing the peptides and getting one or more candidates is the easy part. The next steps are the hard ones, the ones that make pharmaceutical chemists and drug researchers cry:

• Phase I trials to see if it even works as claimed. Expect a 95+% failure rate here. Note that this is where you're going to see the best results for your drug candidate, things never improve from here. The best you can hope for is that they don't get any worse. So if you don't get strong results here you're probably wasting your money.
• Phase II trials to determine the best dosage and pharmacokinetics. Again expect a 95+% failure rate here, and results showing less effectiveness than shown in Phase I.
• Phase III trials to determine behavior in a large sample representative of the target population. Expect a failure rate upwards of 99% here, and a major drop-off in effectiveness. This is where toxicity and serious negative side effects show up, and those can kill your trial dead even if your candidate is working.

Getting through this process will take multiple tries and years of work, assuming you succeed at all. There's a reason they say that the clinic (clinical trials) is where drug candidates go to die.

Obviously. I am currently looking for a data provider for various IOT devices, talked to all major providers, talking to ton of others. Major providers demand that equipment is approved by their networks, in conversations this is all about keeping cheaper equipment out of the country, that's all.

sure, these are choices that stem out of another choice, namely out of the choice to have private ownership and operation of property. If the factory is private property, then it is operating in an environment that promotes and defends private property rights. This means nobody us forced to work there also, not just that nobody is owed a job there. In this environment competition is inevitable and it is competition for the purchasing power of individual buyers. So the demand and purchasing conditions are at least partially dictated by the totality of individual choices of all market participants. This is a policy choice, this is the choice I personally prefer as well.

I don't even understand what died in Britain this time. Surely even before today it was up to the parents to purchase a phone or a tablet or any type of a computer and give it to their children. There is no way for google or anyone to know who is using a phone or a tablet. Today with AI I suppose it is possible to use filters to attempt automatic detection of the person who is livestreaming and allow AI decide if this person is old enough and if not the livestream will then be terminated (or prevented). This will teach children a few things. First of all it will teach them about VPNs, it will also teach them about disguising their identity to the computer, who is looking at them, while they are showing themselves off to the world. They will find new and creative ways to get around these restrictions, they will not 'innocently play', as politicians are promising. There will not be a return to the "good old days". Parents will set up phones and tablets for their offspring because it is easier than to parent and that will be that.

That's why everything running in the cloud runs in containers on a cluster (Kubernetes or similar). If a physical server dies, the cluster control software just drops that server from the cluster. Load management then automatically moves the containers to the remaining servers in the pool. When enough servers are dead they send a tech and a truckload of replacements out. Same for storage: everything's on RAID arrays and as physical SSDs die the array drops that drive and keeps on going with no data loss. Once enough drives in the bay are dead they send someone to swap them out and the RAID controller takes care of initializing them and restoring data from the existing drives as required. It's not uncommon for 30% of the capacity to be out-of-service before replacements are ordered.

They still have to catch up to IBM's old mainframes though. Those you could go in during peak business hours and start pulling and replacing CPUs and memory modules and I/O controllers while everything was live and not disrupt anything.

The language part, true. The problem is dependencies. Any time you upgrade, especially if you're jumping a large number of versions, you're going to have packages your code uses needing upgrades too. Those package upgrades will usually require code changes to accommodate. Some of those changes will require refactoring to handle structural changes needed for things to work right. That is usually where you end up down a rabbit-hole.

I'd prioritize updating Java 8 applications to Java 11 first. Those are going to be the hardest to bring up-to-date with Java 25 (latest LTS), bringing them up to Java 11 buys the most time. Then upgrade to Java 25 starting with Java 17 applications, then Java 21, then Java 11.

Remember that Java 25 will end support in 2033, so plan on starting your upgrade from Java 25 to the next LTS version basically as soon as your last upgrades to Java 25 are done.

You are suggesting quite a few things, except you don't like to actually say directly what it is that you want to happen. Here is one thing you said: "Elon Musk should be a wealthy man, no doubt about it but a trillionaire or hell even a $100B is a failure of our economy, our culture, our society or our politics." - 100B is not Musk anymore, it's more than Musk, who I consider to be a con artist.

What you are implying to calling 100B owner a failure of economy and culture and society and politics is that it should be impossible for some reason for a person to accrue enough ownership of private resources to be at that level. It is your inadequacies that are showing here and it is your word play that we are debating. What you are suggesting is oppression and tyranny, nothing less, which is what is required for a person not to be able to accrue any amount of wealth regardless of how it is obtained.

How about this: "I mean, he does. He also still is one person with 24 hours a day, does he actually provide enough productivity to justify tens of millions every day?" - nobody has to justify anything, if they are able to accrue some wealth beyond your imagination does not make it wrong that a person should be able to do so.

To this I have already answered: "Explain this (i am fully anticipating Libertarian-Randian gobbledygook)" - obviously a large amount of accumulated wealth is represented by a business and this business clearly benefits the society much more than the individual who runs it, otherwise the company wouldn't be valuable enough for you to pay attention how wealthy the owner of this company becomes.

This: "Everything you said would equally apply if he was worth $1B as it does $1000B so what does he need the extra 999B? His lifestyle changes 0%. He can still own and run companies." - implies that a person shouldn't be able to have ownership in a company that is growing in value, Musk or anyone else. So if you build a company that becomes so valuable people invest into it enough that its market share, its profits are so large that the value exceeds 100B (on paper, doesn't matter). If you are the single largest owner of the stock in this company your shares go above and beyond 1B.

You are pretending that you are not suggesting confiscation (oppression by the voting majority) yet what else are you suggesting? Be clear, what are your demands and goals? I already see the reasons, jealousy and ideology with a strange belief that a person shouldn't be able to own something of serious value for some reason.

This: "And I would ask just the same what the unhealthy fixation on defending the massive wealth inequality?" - I am FOR wealth inequality, it's the only thing that actually motivates people to move forward with business ideas in the first place. If wealth equality was the goal, nobody would be ruining their lives trying to run a business.

This: " I'll guess if I ask for the alternative you'll point to "communism" and I will just say you are not a serious person with a serious position. Like I said, Randian nonsense." - you are the one bringing up communism and Randian ideas, whatever, you are fixated on the nomenclature.

This: "You say you want to "protect private property" as if what I am suggesting eliminates private property in any fashion." - of course you are. You are suggesting this exact thing, you wouldn't be happy until there wouldn't be "wealth inequality". This requires that people cannot own things cannot operate things as they see fit, cannot go beyond some artificial number that is stuck in your head. You think 1B is plenty and 100B is too much, whatever that is all about. In reality it's all garbage. A person who made a billion dollar company can use the money that he makes to start more companies and eventually go much further than 1B dollars and this bugs the shit out of you because you are on a mission.

I am 100% certain you were the one bringing up communism, I was not. I am against destruction of private property rights, which is what you are suggesting.

what is unsatisfying to you? I am absolutely against majority oppressing a minority via government intervention, a minority in this case is people with more money than most The tyranny of majority leads to redistribution of resources. Communism is not even supposed to have a government. As someone born in the former USSR half a century ago I can point at that system and absolutely refuse it. I can also point at any oppressive system and refuse it. You are proposing an oppressive system, oppression by the force of government backed by the tyranny of majority. I am against it, it leads to destruction of freedoms, economic freedoms being the only ones that matter.

inequality is the resulr of ability to own property and I want this to be protected regardless how much property because I have seen the alternative and it is misery.

Yes. The construction jobs are very short-term, and once built the data centers bring huge costs (financial and otherwise) while contributing only a handful of permanent jobs. Remember, these are lights-out hands-off facilities. They'll employ a handful of security guards and maintenance workers, the rest will all be handled remotely from Malaysia or the like.