I've been living in the DoD (now the DoW) supplier business for decades

It is still the Department of Defense. The executive branch has no authority to change the name of anything created by Congress. You canâ(TM)t even get the basics right. There is no tortious claim to be made over a vendor agreeing to another vendorâ(TM)s terms of use. Repeating that claim does not make it true. That is a basic part of negotiating a contract, which any third-party vendor can choose to sign or not.

Labeling a vendor a "supply chain risk" is not a warning. It is a black ball. Any vendor for the DoD is prohibited from working with a supply chain risk. That is the hostage situation actually in play here. That is the restraint of trade. You are living in bizarro land.

Show actual evidence the show was unprofitable. The network that decided to take him off the air also appointed Bari Weiss to can inconvenient investigative reports last-second--after paying Trump $16M to settle an obviously frivolous lawsuit. I have no reason to believe they have any basic economic skill.

You get to claim to be Catholic if you have been baptized by a Catholic priest. Even the excommunicated are still considered catholic. The mark of baptism is indelible, and by claiming otherwise you are the one actually engaging in heresy. I suggest you confess this sin of wrath before Sunday, friend.

On the one hand, yeah. The challenge is that Apple's biggest competitor in the mobile market is attempting to wall off its garden too. And both companies are actively attempting bad-faith responses to regulators requiring third-party app store availability. Even if proper support arrives on both platforms, user proficiency in finding them will be a massive hurdle for any developer who wants to avoid the walled garden. This is a market failure happening right in front of us.

That puts it within vague price competition of building a second GW of production. Not quite par with a GW of solar (or best-case costs of natgas or wind), but less than the worst-case cost of combined-cycle natgas ($2B) and wind. Then it becomes a question of whether we need a full day of storage to back that level of generation, not to mention whether it can be spread out to multiple secondary sites (ie close to the last mile or even individual residences) in ways that wind or gas cannot.

Yes, I have "ever actually owned stock" and continue to do so. Do you repeatedly ask others that question to cover for your limited experience in the area? Or is it just a smokescreen for your arguments being plainly self-insufficient?

The information available differs only in degree, and one that varies tremendously across all the various sports you attempted to sleight-of-hand away by focusing on horse racing. It should go without saying that there is a ton of information a corporation will not and cannot give you about their future performance.

Voting is a great benefit of having purchased equity. It is also not a universal benefit, nor does it ever extend to the options under discussion. Have you ever purchased a call option on a company? You don't get to vote on how your underlying stock behaves unless you also happen to own real equity--which has direct analogues to investing in a horse or team.

Sure, but my question is methods for... what?

Honest question, as I haven't spent much time with the topic: what's the primary security concern for the device? Maybe at-rest encryption and exfiltration resistance? AFAICT all the auth methods it makes available are open standards, and I sort of just default to the standard rule that exfil of the private keys is a matter of time once physical access to the device is gained.

If "contest of chance" were the only relevant determinant, betting on horse races and sporting events wouldn't be considered gambling. In both cases, the "future value is influenced by the information available to you [and your bookie ] at the time of purchase".

"Stocks are a risk based game" in the exact same way gambling is. Hedging your investments is fundamentally similar in structure to hedging your bets at the local sportbook. The primary difference is supposed to be that stock valuation is based on all future dividend payments while sports betting is based on discrete rounds of performance that stretch at most until the end of the season. Whether that distinction makes for a strong difference could perhaps be argued in the past decades, where investors have been rewarding and perhaps expecting the goosing of quarterly performance at the potential expense of long-term growth and stability.

When they say stock options, they don't mean the option an employer gives you to buy stock. They're talking about stock-derivative instruments where you buy the right to either purchase or sell a stock at a certain price on a future date. A put (sell) option is straightforwardly a bet against the future value of that company's stock, while a call (buy) option is a bet in support of the future value of that stock, without even putting down enough cash to actually buy the shares today.

Remember also that purchasing stock is, in most cases, not actually investing your money in the company. Some bank already did that when the shares you bought were first issued. What you're really doing is purchasing from a third-party the right to future dividends and, in doing so, providing upward support to the share price so that the company can issue additional shares to banks when they actually need an investment. At best, the company in question will reserve a certain fraction of the issuance for retail investors, but that is a relatively new practice.

Why are you trying to elide government punishment of speech with "social rejection"? It sure doesn't sound like a very honest argument.

Do you really trust a given government will be limiting themselves to a dictionary definition, never mind a good-faith interpretation of such? This administration has already insisted antifa is a terrorist organization despite there being no such organization, nor any evidence of organized anti-fascist terrorism.

"This is a buyer telling the sender they are cancelling their contract and looking for other suppliers. Nothing more." No, labelling a supplier a supply-chain risk is the very definition of "more" than simply cancelling a contract. This designation puts a domestic company in the same bucket as foreign adversaries, and requires any other DoD contractor to cease any contracts with Anthropic and certify that they do not use Anthropic products. This is a blacklisting exactly in the vein of the McCarthy era. Were you so disinterested in your father's life that you failed to explore the variety of methods the government employed against folks like him?

No, the result is that some number of PC gamers did not buy a Playstation because that wasn't required to play the handful of titles they wanted from Sony's publishing arm. PC game sales cannibalize PS5 hardware sales. Keep in mind that also means any non-exclusive titles they buy are definitely not bought as PS5 editions, so Sony is losing out on licensing revenue they may have made if there were a console in that player's house.

It's also worth pointing out that the functional difference in both form factor and play environment has been shrinking over recent years. It's become pretty reasonable to build a decent gaming machine in an ITX case and chassis designers have started targeting models at the living room. Likewise, now that modern game controllers can connect to a PC without an adapter for their proprietary connectors, your ability to plop on a couch with a controller for a PC game is as strong as your ability to run an HDMI cable from your desk to the TV. Since my PC is in my living room anyway, it's easy enough to throw Steam Big Picture up on the TV and play it just like a PS5 anytime I want to take advantage of the sound system. I bought the PS5 before deciding to buy the gaming PC, and I've hardly bought any PS5 games since--which incidentally also means I don't see the PS5 library as I boot up, and forget to play titles I did and would still enjoy.