Same is true for the left too. People's buttons are so easy to push especially the more entrenched they are.

The falls from windows are for those who fled the country and think they are safe.

It's a venerable tradition going back to the old Trotsky days.

Twitter/X is a cesspit that encourages and promotes the most obnoxious, terrible people, and AI bots to dominate the narrative by paying money. It's not the only social media platform so why subject yourself to it? Just leave. As Syndrome says in The Incredibles - "when everyone’s super... no one will be" - leave all the blue ticks to rage and fight each other.

That's bonkers. The concept of communism didn't exist when that country was founded. Try again.

One correction: It didn't have anything to do with discovery. Discovery was complete when the judge put the trial on hold to allow the deal to close. What happened was that Musk realized that proceeding with the trial was dumb because he was going to lose and be forced to complete the transaction regardless, and possibly on worse terms than he could get by just doing it. Avoiding the public spectacle of the trial was also a consideration, I'm sure, but not discovery... 10 days before trial discovery is already done.

That's too strong. Appeasement does work sometimes... when it works we usually call it "compromise" or something similar, though. There's a book "Appeasement in International Politics" that examines a large number of cases where it worked and where it didn't. The author lays out a number of criteria that influence whether it works.:

1. When the opponents aims are limited and grievance-based.
2. When the concession addresses the grievance
3. When the conceding party is strong, so the concession is a choice
4. When concessions are reciprocal and limited.

That said, Trump's aims are never limited. That has become clear. It wasn't necessarily obvious that was the case early on, though.

Maybe? There are some pretty good arguments that it did pan out in 1939. It didn't prevent the war, but it gave the British time to build out radar coverage and ramp up production of hurricanes and spitfires. Britain may actually have been better off going to war in 1940 than they would have in 1939, so appeasement may well have provided a useful delay.

It's both. Advertisers very much want to advertise things you want to buy, to either trigger a purchase that you were holding off on and might forget about or (more often) to direct a purchase to a specific product or brand, rather than a competitor's. Advertisers also want to push purchase ideas to you, to tell you about things you might want to buy that you didn't know about, or often just to build brand awareness or brand vibes so that if at sometime in the future you're interested in something, you'll pick theirs.

Advertisers really don't want to pay money to show you ads for stuff that you simply won't ever buy. That's a waste. And the ad algorithms often screw it up and deliver wasted ads. That lowers the value to advertisers, making them willing to pay less per ad, which lowers the value to ad distributors. They'd very much like their ads to be better.

Larry Page used to say that the project of building good advertising wasn't done until every ad resulted in a purchase. That would actually be a kind of ad nirvana for advertisers, who would be willing to pay a lot for a guaranteed sale, ad networks, who could charge a lot for an ad, and even consumers, who would never see any ads except for things they wanted to buy (even if they didn't know they wanted the thing until they saw the ad -- indeed those would be the most valuable ads, since they would convert a guaranteed non-purchase to a guaranteed purchase).

(Larry's comment ignored brand awareness advertising, obviously).

The status quo is obviously very far from that situation.

Shutter? You think they're going to spend $500B on fabs and then just shut them down? Their boards would be eviscerated. As for "repurpose", sure, they'll manufacture whatever will generate the most profit, but with a fab capacity glut that will definitely include RAM.

That wasn't my experience, though perhaps it was just my workloads.

I didn't use OS/2 until Warp, some years later, and only because I went to work for IBM.

Ah, the good 'ol "No True Communism" argument :)

The Dumb Design Of Modern Cars

"It suggests" if you ignore that their confounder control is terrible. First, sugar wasn't the only restricted food in post-war Britain - there was also rationing of eggs, butter, cheese and meats that ended during the same timeperiod. So you're not actually testing the effects of sugar consumption, now are you? Also, the early 1950s was a period of rapid change in the US, including the maturation and expansion of the NHS (founded in 1948), the introduction of new childhood vaccines, major environmental shifts (for example, the Great Smog of London in 1952 vs. the 1956 Clean Air Act). Saying "all changes = sugar" just based on birthdate seems absurd.

It's also worth mentioning that there's also survivorship bias - anyone who died before the study couldn't be enrolled, and there's also no actual linking to any maternal / childhood dietary logs. Also, the ratios of cancer differences they're describing aren't small, they're massive. Are we to attribute a lung cancer difference on the order of smoking vs. nonsmoking households as being to sugar, or due to, you know, smoking (or pollution) trends not accounted for in their cohort?

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Wait. No. I guess *they* won instead.

Way to out yourself as being American by being simultaneously loudly, assertively ignorant and racist at the same time.

** - Collective guilt is a fallacy; modern Germany is a highly democratic constitutional state with a commendable record on teaching against extremism; Marx and Engel drew heavily from French utopian socialists (e.g., Saint-Simon, Fourier), while it was the Russians who actually implemented communism; World War I began with the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Bosnian Serb nationalist, triggering a chain reaction of ultimatums and alliances involving Austria-Hungary, Serbia, Russia, France, Germany, and Great Britain, with any individual state bearing guilt for the war being a notion firmly rejected by modern historians; Hitler was born in Austria-Hungary and was an Austrian citizen until he renounced it in 1925, not gaining German citizenship until 1932; the East German government and the Stasi was forced on the people of Germany by the USSR, and it was not a global phenomenon "brought to the world", but rather dissolved with the GDR in 1990. TL/DR: Go fuck yourself.

No, supply will increase. What you're not considering is that the manufacturers are building fab capacity like crazy right now. When all of that capacity hits (in 3-4 years), prices will crater. We've been through this whole cycle many times.

I remember the first big one, driven by the launch of Windows 95. MS-DOS could use memory above the 640K mark only with significant pain and complexity, but Win95 could address it directly and really liked having an insane amount of RAM... like 16 MB!!. Freakin' hog. My NeXTstation only had 8 MB and it blew those dumb PCs out of the water... anyway, I digress. RAM prices spiked, but within about 18 months (fabs were simpler back then) they went through the floor.