You paid for a closed-source service where you're at the mercy of the publisher's whims. What did you expect?

So, on the minus side we've got people trying to game the system. On the more-minus side; the way they are trying to game the system suggests that peer review has, at least in part, been farmed out to chatbots because it's easier. Fantastic.

"A tandem charge the size of a solar system" isn't really the reassuring correction I was hoping for; to be honest.

Practically zero, just like the thickness of the atmosphere relative to the size of Earth.

Thankfully, you can sustain national greatness just by shouting belligerently about it; the idea that you actually need competence or execution is just a con; so this should have no side effects whatsoever.

Probably not great news that someone further up the Kardashev scale remains a fan of double tap strikes.

No they don't. They stand for making joycons so badly that stick drift has become a deliberate revenue stream for them.

If so that means the standards are ridiculous and need that giant gaping hole patched.

My suspicion is that they are probably in the clear. the USB PD spec includes 'vendor-defined messages'; both 'structured VDMs' that are standardized and 'unstructured VDMs' that are basically whatever the implementer feels like. This obviously doesn't prove that Nintendo are in full compliance with what the USB-IF really wants the USB trademarks applied to; but(along with the reports that it plays just fine with 3rd party chargers) it looks a lot more like a basically-compliant-minus-any-bugs-or-compatibility-hacks USB PD implementation that just doesn't mention DP alt mode unless it likes the unstructured VDM chatter. Dick move; but one you could do in full standards compliance.

Sounds like they are acting all pious over what is basically a workplace dispute over division of margins.

The outfits that do ransomware negotiations remain legal; because for some reason that's one area where nobody bats an eye at you doing business with transnational criminal syndicates; but they are basically just bagmen who take a cut of the deal for interacting with the disreputable ransomware guys for you. In this case, apparently one of the employees wanted a larger percentage of the cut than he was getting from his employer.

I suspect that what he did is some sort of crime in a way that what his employer does isn't; but it's the same business model; just with some disagreement over whether that guy gets a percentage directly as well or whether just the company does.

Eberhart seems like he may be falling for the hype himself. He says "What's happening now isn't innovation; it's aspiration masquerading as disruption..."; but fails to note the fairly profound differences in results between the orbital delivery guys and the moonshot guys; and how neatly that maps onto what is aspiration and what isn't.

Putting satellites into orbit is kind of mundane at this point, too common, too obviously useful; but it's sufficiently obviously useful that more or less anyone with nation-state aspirations wants to at least have a program that executes; and civilian and day-to-day operations want someone who executes but cheaper. And that exists. Going to the moon is cool, and it's a nice prestige project for when the gerontocracy needs to show that they still have it just like when they showed the commies what for; but it's unclear exactly what the point is or the stakes are beyond that. The customer presumably would like to actually land something on the moon, at some point, just to say that they did; but what they are buying is mostly aspiration on the cheap: We get to say that we have a lunar program for way less than Apollo money, you do some open-ended tinkering, honor satisfied.

He can talk about 'accountability'; but it seems like it's a fundamentally hard problem to actually sustain a lie about how serious you are, at an institutional level, in the long term. It's not like do-or-die projects are free of losers(especially because circumstances have a nasty habit of thrusting them on people whether they like it or not; rather than giving them the luxury of choosing whether or not to take on those stakes); but they tend to be animated by a sense of genuine urgency. Stuff that is, fundamentally, kind of optional, by contrast, tends to reflect that in bulk. Timmy Rockets may be genuinely more passionate about stir-welding than you've ever been about anything; but, like is cousin who is really passionate social worker, will soon discover that going to the moon and fighting poverty are open-ended projects we do because they sound nice, not because anyone who matters is actually committing to a deadline.

I can think of some niche cases where this might be useful(mostly HHD/SSD wear data; though bad actors have been able to tamper with those values without much difficulty); but overall this seems like throwing an awful lot of identifying data and a whole 'trust me bro' shadow subsystem at a problem that the data is unlikely to actually help all that much with.

This will be very good at fretting if the refurbisher swapped out RAM or mass storage; but it's not like onboard diagnostics are all that good at picking up the difference between a machine that has had a fairly hard life and now has somewhat dodgy ports and a bit of uncomfortable flex vs. one that sat on a dock most of its life and got unplugged only a handful of times; any any issue that the embedded diagnostics can pick up can also be picked up without any special recordkeeping by just running the diagnostics when you receive the device and verifying that it doesn't throw any errors out of the box.

If you've already got the trust me bro shadow subsystem I assume it's relatively cheap to propose having it keep more records; but I'm not really convinced of how much value is being added.

Is there some problem particular to human DNA that they are looking to solve; or is this just an extension of the ongoing work on DNA synthesis(if you are OK with relatively short segments that has come down to being something you can just order, not nearly as exotic as it once was) but being hyped because there's some human cell genetic engineering at the end; rather than just meeting more aggressive targets for achievable lengths?

You say 'involuntary psych hold'; I say 'MAU'!

Fair point, but there are a lot of large and influential companies that don't pay any dividends, because they invest their profits directly into growth and development. For example Nvidia.... well, they seem to pay 0.03 % of the current stock price, so essentially zero. The only economically sensible reason to invest in them is speculation; if there's some "useful economic activity" involved, the only way you'll get a piece of it is by buying low and selling high.

Cryptocurrencies have the same utility as banks, and many banks have been working on their own blockchains for years, for example JP Morgan: https://fintechmagazine.com/ar...

The stock market comparison is really just a side effect of what cryptocurrencies are all about, which is transferring money in ways that traditional banks can't do -- pseudonymously and independent of governments or businesses. Store of value and speculation is one thing, but you can't send NVDA shares (or gold, or tulips) across the globe with this kind of speed and freedom. Cryptocurrencies have value because they provide this service, you don't really pay just for the store of value.