Ooh, you are going to love 'qualified immunity'. Invented more or less out of whole cloth to protect our brave boys in blue from the terrors of the (checks notes) civil rights movement.

This guy sounds like an unsympathetic defendant; but "allowed the evidence to be used because the officer who applied for the warrant reasonably believed he was acting properly." is basically a "your rights are whatever the dumbest cop you know has an incentive to guess they are based on convenience and a half-remembered training powerpoint that needn't be correct" standard of evidence; which requires little imagination to see going dubious places fast. Along with some third party doctrine, for flavor.

You'd think a company in the adtech business would be more...polite...about what are basically just banner ads for bots.

There are obviously other reasons why some people want unix or unix-like OSes; and some environments where the benefits can show up on fairly constrained hardware; but it can't have helped that the matchup was against microcomputer OSes on what were still very micro-computers.

A lot of the compromises that put microcomputer OSes on the 'how about you get a real computer?' list just don't hit as hard on very small systems. Oh boy; the multitasking is nonexistent or one of the nasty kludges like TSR or 'cooperative'. And there's no user separation or meaningful filesystem permissions. And the lack of memory protection means anything that goes bad can take the whole system down in a screaming heap. Well. I guess all of those things would be really bad if I could afford enough RAM to actually run multiple programs at once pleasantly. Or if the bulk of the system's state weren't stored on a removable disk whose permissions become irrelevant if you move it to a different system. Or I could afford enough networking hardware for any of this to be dangerous.

In specific environments all that and more would have been true and relevant by 1984; and it's notable how long the microcomputer OSes continued paying for their compromises (ignoring the ones that died; it basically took both MS and Apple 15 years to bolt their respective options onto a real operating system, longer for the result to become the default; and at this rate Windows seems closer to being on track to just ignoring both in favor of 'web' auth flavors than it does to finally shaking all the weird crevices where things depend on NTLM); but in 1984 you could more or less fit an application you might want to use or an OS that didn't suck at it's job onto a computer you could afford; but much less frequently both at the same time.

Obviously we aren't expecting a merit hire from the current administration; but this seems like a weird move even by their low standards of thuggish demands for compliance and sniveling loyalists. Hegseth is having a tantrum over anthropic allegedly getting in the way of the DoD fulfiling his fantasies of masculine adequacy; so you fire the guy who left anthropic to work for you?

Isn't the whole point of treating any differences of opinion as personal insults to be dealt with regardless of their legality, while coddling loyalists regardless of their actions, to encourage people to obey you rather than others? Especially if this guy wasn't in a position to personally change Anthropic's contract with the DoD what lesson are you conveying by punishing him anyway? "We might just fuck you over because we don't like your old boss" seems like an actively counterproductive line because it essentially tells a nontrivial number of people that compliance isn't worth it because they'll be punished anyway; rather than encouraging them to turn on whoever your enemies are in order to be rewarded.

I suspect it's more hubris than outright stupidity: he's capricious; but Trump sometimes permits others to feast on the little people as well, when it suits him. I suspect that our gentleman here had no expectation that the dealings would be honest; but was hoping that they would be partners in crime against people who don't matter.

It will be morbidly interesting to see how his 'attempt to seek justice through the courts against someone whose lawlessness he has bene abetting' plan will work out for him.

Well, first of all, hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, and carbon makes up something like 0.5% of the total observed mass of the universe (it's the fourth most common element), so along with other trace elements like sodium, phosphorus and the like, we're simply looking for places where there is sufficient energy to create the necessary reactions to produce organic compounds. No lack of energetic sources, in particular stellar system formation. Indeed many comets and asteroids host a lot of precursors, indicating that some fairly sophisticated organic chemistry was going on early in the solar system's development.

Panspermia would require that life itself was raining down on the terrestrial planets. Precursors would simply indicate there were a lot of strange and complex organic compounds falling on to the surfaces of planets like Earth, Mars and Venus, and were also likely constituents of bodies like Europa and Titan (well, we know Titan is covered in a literal hydrocarbon stew). What this discovery indicates, at the very least, is there was indeed a lot of organic compound in the early solar system and these organic compounds, at least on Earth, led to abiogenesis. Panspermia would advocate abiogenesis happened at some undetermined point further back.

If we find other life in the solar system, such as in Europa's or Ganymede's oceans, and it has DNA or some very close relative, with similar translation and transcription systems as we find in archaea and bacteria on Earth, then that would be a very strong argument that life in the solar system had a common origin. If however, there is no clear relationship between the two populations; say, they use something similar to DNA, but the genetic codes are different (all extant life on Earth uses the same canonical genetic code mapping codons to amino acids, strongly suggested the canonical code evolved prior to the Last Universal Common Ancestor), then we're very likely looking at an example of convergent evolution, and not in fact at two related populations.

I suspect that he's neither the first nor the last who are genuinely quite eager to see more 'equity participation' in some of the big bot shops; given that they've burned through all the VC they can get and even the dumb money is starting to get nervous. Retail bagholders and state investment under the guise of benevolence would be just the thing.

What is much less clear is whether the same amount of interest will be present once current investors take enough of a haircut that the remainder is actually worth something, or one or more of them actually start turning a profit.

Yes. This is a pretty straightforward "Guy demands that sellers of complimentary goods accept smaller margins in way that sounds like he cares about user experience".

It may be true that studios and theatres have fallen into a counterproductive trap: there's an obviously self defeating race to the bottom if theatres keep getting squeezed and responding by making the theatre experience worse which then reduces ticket sales and makes their fixed costs even less supportable so they make the experience yet worse; but the studios hold far more of the cards than the theatres do here.

In an unhelpful sense we know that advertising works by how much is spent on it. What we do not know is whether advertisers justify their cost by influencing consumer behavior as they allege they do; or whether they are exceptionally effective at targeting the people who set ad budgets. Or potentially a mix of the two. Someone is definitely having their behavior influenced in a big way though.

Given how tightly a lot of meetings are really wrapped up in power (all the ones that could have been an email but are about who you an force to show up and all the ones that could have been an email but are about cutting someone out of the loop in a visible way) it tracks that the desire to be in your meeting while skipping your meeting would come from the top; probably accompanied by some questionable theories about how your management is so valuable that even a mechanized distillation of it will better the minions exposed to it.

Are they going to try to avoid it preying on younger LLMs, or is that seen as a benefit when dealing with the emergence of potential competitors?

Except that was already done, and done brilliantly by Deep Space Nine. In reality, the Star Fleet Academy idea had a very old lineage, to the smoking shambles that was Star Trek V, when the idea was posited of having a prequel with the TOS characters, or at least the main ones, portrayed by younger actors, during their Academy days. It was pretty quickly rejected because at the time they didn't think audiences would buy the idea of new actors playing Kirk, Spock and Bones.

Of course, in the end, that was effectively what the first part of the 2009 Star Trek, which, for me at least, proved that the guys who rejected the idea in 1989-90 were spot on. But other people like the Kelvinverse films, so to each their own.

The real problem isn't writing per se. There were no lack of justifiable complaints against Voyager and Enterprise. The real problem is that no one really knows where to take it. The whole 32nd century gambit is because no one really knows how to portray the technology of the intervening period. The Enterprise temporal war rubbish demonstrated just how incredibly problematic it can be for an established sci-fi franchise to push itself across a broad timeline when you start with ships that go multiples of the speed of light, create holodecks and replicators and have computers so intelligent they can create conscious beings, and that's just by the 24th century.

With James Bond they can just keep resetting the character over and over again, and updating the gadgets along the way. Star Trek, for all its faults, has established a sort of permanent 70s-ish technology vibe, and because it's more fantasy then science fiction, the controls for the super planet buster never have to change! That franchise fell on its sword more because of a lack of imagination, lazy writing and an obvious desire not to pay Extended Universe authors some royalties for a cache of rather interesting ideas, and ultimately having to go there anyways.

In all cases, I think the fan base is the worst enemy. No franchise like Star Trek is ever going to measure up to the mythology of the older series. TOS really has entered the realm of cultural myth, and TNG, though everyone forgets how much the first season was disliked (and on rewatch a few years ago, I have to say it feels like a wonder that it ever got a season 2), isn't far behind. Even DS9's critics have finally stopped talking, and for my money, it is the most consistently well-written and well-acted of all the Star Treks. But that kind of legacy is absolutely toxic, because if you try to be too different everyone screams "It isn't Star Trek", and if you try to be similar in tone, then everyone complains "We've seen it all before!"

"Strange New Worlds was a nice partial deviation from this - they still made sure to pander to all the current 'sensitivities', but if the writers of the show didn't love the original series and its fundamental qualities, I don't know who does."

Have you even seen the original series? Racism, bigotry, classism, human rights, ethics, not to mention nationalism, were all dealt with. TNG went further, particularly with Riker's penchant for rather open sexual interests, and of course DS9 dealt with everything from war crimes to the undermining of civil society. Voyager and Enterprise in their turn covered similar issues, though perhaps not always as ably as the first three series did.

While I would agree the way Nutrek at times has tried to do social commentary has perhaps suffered from a lack of metaphor and allegory, which the older series' writers at times had to work through since things like interracial kisses and non-binary identity would have, at the time, caused stations to go apoplectic (and indeed some did, with the Kirk-Uhura kiss). But I suspect more than just some iffy writing is at play here. Everyone accepts, well almost everyone that is, that mixed-race couples can kiss in public, and most people accept gay couples and class and racial equality. But if you try to push further into social liberalism, past what many conservative elements in society have been forced (kicking and screaming the whole way mind you), well suddenly it's all evil woke trash trying to reprogram our brains.

In other words, many have not progressed very far at all, and because TOS and TNG in particular had to hide the underlying message beneath makeup and latex, the less progressive fans can watch it and, well, almost willfully miss the point of The Outcast (TNG) or Let That Be Your Last Battlefield (TOS), assuming, I suppose, that the metaphor is buried so deeply they don't have to challenge their prejudices.