Really? Like what? The future of electric vehicle technology, renewable energy, space travel, manufacturing automation, or AI? Because he seems quite insightful and thoroughly informed on all those topics. In fact, I haven't heard him say anything on a technical subject which isn't thoroughly well considered. Are you sure you don't just have some sort of political conflict with him, or hate his wealth?

You're off on a couple important points: first, none of the three intentionally buggy patches they submitted were approved and merged - they were all rejected (but not all because the malicious code was identified). Second, and perhaps more importantly, the same group of people were simultaneously responsible for piping the output of a poorly-functioning automated code review tool directly into the patch submission process, flooding the kernel devs with a large number of bad and often nonsensical patch submissions which had not been reviewed by any humans, were not disclosed to be the output of an un-validated automated tool, and which were labeled with high priority and importance despite mostly being unhelpful or trivial. This effectively spammed the patch pipeline with a bunch of crap at the same time that these same people were submitting their intentionally buggy patches for their undisclosed penetration testing project. To me, it's the combination of these actions which is especially objectionable.

I'm so glad this completely non-partisan news reporting so thoroughly analyzed the nuances of this new plan to... legislate outcomes directly, by federal mandate. Because that approach to government has an excellent track record and totally doesn't cause unintended consequences.

I'd also note that I'm pretty sure these aren't UCC transactions. I'm not seeing any aspect that would put them within it's scope, unless I'm missing something.

That's not so clear yet, and depends on a lot of facts we don't know. The criminal laws potentially at issue here would relate to fraud. Cricut's business practice has been to sell hardware, and encumber that hardware with restrictions which compel buyers to spend more money to keep using what they already bought. This isn't uncommon, and isn't fraudulent by itself - but it can be dangerous territory. This new change which reduces the functionality of hardware already sold, compelling owners to spend more money just to continue using functionality which was previously free, could be a real problem depending on the details. For example, hypothetically, this change could have been planned in advance when the hardware was first designed, but kept secret from buyers. If that were the case, there is an argument to be made that the initial sales involved fraud in the failure to disclose that a subscription would later be required to use the equipment. That type of consumer fraud (if that were to occur) may be a violation of criminal laws in some states, and if it's done in interstate commerce (especially with any aspect involving mail) then federal statutes may also apply. So there are some possible factual scenarios where this could end up being a criminal matter, depending on the details.

You might think the summary doesn't match the headline. That's because the summary omits the entire point of this appellate ruling. From the article:

“We do not disturb the Claims Court’s findings [of an implied license]. The Claims Court ended its analysis of this case prematurely, however, by failing to consider whether the Navy complied with the terms of the implied license,” the Appeals Court writes. “The implied license was conditioned on the Navy using a license-tracking software, Flexera, to ‘FlexWrap’ the program and monitor the number of simultaneous users. It is undisputed that the Navy failed to effectively FlexWrap the copies it made,” the Court adds. “Such unauthorized copying is copyright infringement. We therefore vacate the Claims Court’s judgment and remand for a determination of damages,” the Appeals Court clarifies.

It is inherently unethical to cripple defensive tools by burdening them with a failure-prone system which can disable the device when it's needed most - especially when it's trivial to build guns without this technology, thus ensuring that people who are unconcerned with regulatory compliance will always have access to guns they can freely use against the people with AI-equipped "ethically restricted" pistols.

Actually, someone on Twitter claiming to be a lower-level IT employee at Robinhood said exactly that. And that others called, too. This remains unverified by other sources, but the accusation has been made by someone claiming first-hand knowledge.

The subreddit is back up. The content is intact. It got slammed with bots this afternoon, and a flood of shitposting (which is really saying something over there). The sub gained a million users overnight and is the epicenter of a historic event, so there's a lot to handle. The GME short squeeze is ongoing and the sentiment on the sub seems to be to hold or buy, and to extend puts ("WE LIKE THE STOCK!" is the mantra over there). Although some of the short sellers (apparently including Melvin) seem to be claiming that they've covered already, I'm not convinced - and it doesn't look like others are convinced either. GME may or may not still be shorted beyond the float, it seems. At this point it's hard to tell if the price is being driven more by the short squeeze or simply by insane tulip-like buying pressure. I wouldn't even venture a guess on that.

It'll almost certainly crash, but the saving grace here is that everyone involved seems completely aware of this inevitable fate and accepts the risk. I have not jumped in.

These researchers certainly appear to be twisting the definition of a "subsidy" beyond rationality in order to push an anti-capitalist class-warfare perspective:

This doesn't pass my sniff test for objective academic analysis, but apparently this is what gets published in the 4th-ranked environmental sciences journal these days.

That's how it is in my city, too. It works pretty well and things run fairly smoothly. Our city has 2/3 of the population of Switzerland, and is barely in the top 5 biggest cities in the USA. There is a scaling problem here.

I just read the entire opinion. Kavanaugh's concurrence does not say ANY of the things you claim it does. There is nothing in there about precedent requiring the counting of all votes by 12:01AM on November 4th. In fact, there is nothing in there about precedent requiring the counting of all votes immediately after the election at all. I'm not sure what you were reading, or how you could possibly misread his concurrence to say anything like that. Read it. It's long, but it does exactly what the GP says it does: it argues that the rather complex election system the Wisconsin legislature implemented should not be involuntarily modified by the Federal Courts in the few days immediately preceding this election. It directly addresses the opposing arguments from the dissenting justices, analyzing why the facts do not support the claims of "disenfranchisement" here, and applying the long-standing precedent on judicial interference in legislatively created election laws. Even if you favor the other side's preferred outcome, it's hard to argue against many of the points he makes on this.

I don't do chess with pigeons, and especially not for free.

The article just summarizes another article (https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea) which actually reports the IEA findings. It turns out that solar is only cheaper if you factor in the special government programs which give super-favorable below-market financing to utilities to build solar, and shift default risk to the taxpayers:

"This shift is the result of new analysis carried out by the WEO team, looking at the average 'cost of capital' for developers looking to build new generating capacity. Previously the IEA assumed a range of 7-8% for all technologies, varying according to each country’s stage of development. Now, the IEA has reviewed the evidence internationally and finds that for solar, the cost of capital is much lower, at 2.6-5.0% in Europe and the US, 4.4-5.5% in China and 8.8-10.0% in India, largely as a result of policies designed to reduce the risk of renewable investments."

Solar remains substantially more expensive than other technologies. Some governments subsidize it enough to make it competitive, and this analysis relies on that.