It makes sense in some cases to have a cleaning fee at the end rather than building it in to the nightly cost.

A decent hotel will clean your room every day, an airbnb will not - they will just clean the place after you leave ready for the next guest. Thus the cleaning costs are the same wether you stay 1 night or 1 month.
If you're not getting daily cleanings it doesn't make sense to factor the cost into the nightly rate.

Sent through a physical cable you either receive the original data or not.
Once you are receiving the original data - either through clean transmission, or because error correction has fixed any transmission errors, it doesn't get any better.

At the relatively low bandwidth needed for audio data, there are many protocols and physical carriers capable of transmitting the data and ensuring a perfect copy is received even over low quality cabling.

Or just pass the whole machine on to that entity, and let them work out how to hack it... Assuming that such entities don't already have access to such machines.

But you don't use a federal agency where a significant proportion of the employees wouldn't agree with the intended use of the vulnerabilities.
It only took one edward snowden to leak exploits from the NSA, and the NSA as an agency targets foreign countries so most americans wouldn't have a problem with it. Once you had an agency using exploits to subvert the domestic vote you can guarantee that the majority of employees would be against it.

You'd get a voting machine to a friendly location - die hard domestic supporters, or a foreign power that aligns with your goals. And on the subject of foreign powers, it's almost certain that at least the russians and chinese already have access to these machines and have studied them, possibly other countries like iran and north korea too.

So the machines did give fraudulent counts and the claim was correct.

Patching the vulnerabilities in the future wouldn't change the fact that the system was vulnerable last time it was used, and someone else could have independently found and exploited the vulnerabilities at the time.
Likely if vulnerabilities were found they would be used to claim that they were exploited during previous elections, and calling the results into question.

Are you going to mention how our own economy has changed as it has increasingly fallen under the sway of finance guys and MBAs? Because the claim is significantly more specific than "the US from 1950 to present sucks"(because the hyperfocus on finance and MBAs who think that all activities are fungible is significantly newer than the postwar US economy generally) and it's some of the trends you see in an exceptionally favorable economy as they displace other flavors of management that are most damning.

A fork truck moves predictably and has weak points, so yes you probably could beat it. Equally it could easily kill you if it was able to spear you with its forks.
If you were able to get around the forks, or even in between them you could start ripping out the hydraulic lines.

A "contest" requires more than 1 human participant... When those laws were written they likely never considered someone fighting a robot.
Until recently any human fighting a "non human" would have meant fighting an animal, and there are separate animal cruelty laws to cover such scenarios. But there are no laws that forbid cruelty to machines.

A fight against a robot could be considered use of training equipment rather than a contest, although it might fall foul of other laws relating to dangerous equipment in the workplace etc.

Precisely this... In those videos he's fighting the robot as if it was a human opponent, trying to hit it in places like the head where a human would be vulnerable.
The robot looked to have some exposed wiring around the back of the head, in a real fight you'd go for the wiring or joints in order to incapacitate the robot, not repeatedly punch it in the face.

Also a robot designed to kill wouldn't be humanoid or try to fight with punches and kicks, it's more likely to come on wheels, tracks or rotors and be armed with guns or explosives. See the combat drones in Ukraine for example.

Even aside from how unhappy site operators are about the egregious botherd scraping behavior; it's hard to see why vendors would be enthusiastic about this situation.

It's overwhelmingly the case that vendors hate returns and chargebacks; and generally try to avoid situations where those are more likely to arise. An error-prone mechanism that acts "on behalf of" in a way where it does have the user's credentials and payment information but may well not have their authorization in a legally binding way when it decides to order 100 of something seems like the last thing they would want to deal with.

Maybe someone will manage to ram through glorious-agentic-future and it will become de-facto mandatory to cater to people who have abandoned ordering from websites in favor of prompting bots to order for them; but until that happens it's hard to see merchants reputable enough that they are interested in keeping their ratings and relationships with payment processors in good order wanting to touch the situation. Now, scammers who already hop between expendable presences as soon as dissatisfaction catches up with them; those are probably quite interested in the future of prompt injection based advertising.

Are you saying this person is a former female or a former boss?

Statistical contortions might provide copium, but don't prove anything. I gave you a straightforward parameter median household income. Something economists have been using for generations. You had to cherry-pick — and your cherry is rotten, because you complained about the period of COVID lock-downs, much of it presided over by your champion.

And you provided no citations. No wonder, your moderation is so high :)

Virtually all business connections do allow just that. You could be reselling transit, offering services to downstream customers etc, even a cafe that offers wifi to its customers is effectively reselling the service.

What does it cost to employ an office worker? Much, much more than $200/month. $200/month to make an office worker more productive is a no-brainer.