> Just build some fucking windmills and stick them to batteries and you'll be fine

Please compare the human death rate of wind and solar to atomic energy.

Yes, workers lives matter.

Might as well do coal too.

Also, we have a moral obligation to transmute the 300,000-year waste that the postwar generation left us with (besides their mountain of debt and impossible Empire).

Pay the bounty.

The two other possible outcomes are Nightmare Eclipse (she's really on a roll!) or 0day sales on DNM's.

It doesn't even matter whether a decision to fix is made.

Gosh, you'd think $GOOG was broke.

its new, unnamed virtualization software is incompatible with Veeam

So, being as Veeam supports Hyper-V, Proxmox, Nutanix, Red Hat, and XCP-NG is supposedly coming within the next month or two...what could they have POSSIBLY moved to, and why the hell did they walk past all of those other products to do it?!

It's important to realize that the so-called far-left Democrats idealize Bolshevism while the far-right Republicans idealize Fascism, both of which are forms of Big Government Socialism.

So if the Democrats are in power and they want to increase the size and scope of government the Republicans will go along with it 80% of the time. Because they know they will eventually be back in power and have more tools of power to control.

They will balk the other 20% of the time so they still have something to run on and false promises to make to their voters.

The powerful parasite class is corrupt as hell regardless of jersey and they only care about staying in power. So if it's endless wars to get bribes from the MIC or poisons in the food supply to get bribes from Pharma or Big Chem it doesn't matter, that get passed.

That's why we have two-tiered courts, warrantless spying, usury, rigged elections, poisoned foods, endless wars, completely failed schools, satanic pedophiles getting pardons, crashing wages, nondischargable debt, unaffordable healthcare, food, housing, etc.

The vast majority of voters in any party want the opposite of that but are told to vote for "the lesser of two evils" which admits to an inherently evil system.

The Framers constructed a system of subsidiarity but that's long gone, its vestiges only permitted to prevent a real Revolution.

> Vote accordingly.

The only thing they fear is an election where nobody participate because they know they're screwed regardless of outcome.

After that real change has a chance of happening but it's never comfortable.

It's all well and good until Lore steals Data's emotion chip.

The scheme I'm seeing the game theory people put out:

1. IPO to pay off the investors (political oligarchs)
2. Fear monger about China.
3. Bubble bursts.
4. Nationalize all the massive new data centers "to stop China".
5. Hand over the data centers to the "National Security State" now merged with a tiny violent Middle East colony.
6. Turn the apparatus inward to implement the AI Surveillance Police State (ASPS).
7. Blackmail the Boomers to send control eastward.

It's worth defending against even if the odds are low.

Are these the glasses the Visitors wore in V: The Miniseries?

Definitely not something a human would wear.

Do any adults actually use Snap? I thought it was just kids. Kids who have a few grand laying around these days?

Maybe they'll pair with an absurd Commodore flip phone.

On the other hand we may be seeing Malicious Compliance from Snap workers. If so, well played.

Or there are no workers and some LLM is running the whole thing.

So many possible ways this went horribly wrong.

Countries that welcome immigrants are able to increase the tax base, and supply critical labor that locals don't want to do, including taking care of the elderly.

But you take in too many, too fast, AND if you allow those that are diametrically opposed to your values and way of life.....YOU LOSE YOUR COUNTRY.

and that's what we're seeing now across EU and trying to combat in the US.

The adult choice to be tech-ignorant in 2026 has consequences.

There is no excuse for that level of self-neglect. Boomers don't get a pass since they lived through the birth of the internet. If you're old in 2026 you had many decades beforehand to pull head from arse and learn.

HTC phones from OEM don't come with Unit 8200 APT implants so they're inferior?

Trump recently said that True MAGA is whatever Mark Levin is saying so I'm trying to steelman.

Or StealMan in this case?

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.

Fire easily destroys or disables concentrated "force loss multiplier" fratricidal storage designs. Not just accidents, but terrorist-style attacks can take them out easily via drones using simple electric triggers.

https://theconversation.com/wh...

Disperse batteries far and wide and they'll be much more difficult to interfere with if they're designed to function without grid power during emergencies. A controlled, graceful shutdown is better than abrupt power interruption.

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.