Out of the list of the ten richest politicians in America, 3 are Democrats and 7 are Republicans. So looks like Republicans have the edge. https://247wallst.com/politics...

Biden and Obama would need to be about an order of magnitude richer to make the list.

I thought the point of this article was that people are staying on Win 10, that tells me that MS isn't 'bricking' old devices...

That's happening across the world. It just hit China and Japan a few years earlier than it's hitting us.

Here too.

Unless you're losing faster.

He said:

IF (he) gets forced...

Your customer is running 22 year-old server OS? Really? Are they Running Windows 2000 on their Pentium II desktops?

Win 11 is what, a four or five year-old product by now? Most corporations turnover their desktops/laptops every 3-4 years, this is only an issue for home users and small businesses that need to try and squeeze ten years out of their hardware...

Yet, oddly, millions and millions of people use Win 11 every business day to accomplish revenue-generating work without issue...

That really depends on exactly what definition you are using. I suppose you could argue that yogurt could be made at home in a normal kitchen, but cheddar cheese couldn't. And I've never actually seen anyone make sauerkraut, though people certainly used to do so.

I.e., the first published definition of "ultraprocessed" specified "things that couldn't be made in a normal kitchen". I'll agree that it's a very sloppy definition, but I haven't heard a better one.

Nope.

Trucks, including the light trucks sold to consumers, are a separate category in DAFE. You don't average trucks in with cars.

The point was not about them being the same technology. The point was about them both being technologies that do a better job than a human in general, but may do a catastrophically worse job than a human in specific situations.

Also, you don't seem to understand that current gen AI is algorithmic. The "self-learning neural networks" are algorithms that will produce the same output from the same inputs. Either you have not actually studied computer science, or you did not understand some of it.

While there are circumstances where you can use them without actually quoting something, there are certainly situations where the expectation is that you are actually quoting something. For example when you are claiming some specific regulation or ethical rule and then you put something in quotes appearing to be a quote of the rule or, for another example, the sentence I have copied above where you appear to be quoting me, but just made the sentence up. In any case, whether or not it's a quote, it's still generally expected that you'll give a citation.

Sorry, but you're basically babbling like an idiot and you're still entirely missing the point for some weird tangent that has nothing to do with what I was saying.

I mean yeah, it's unfair to blame him for more than about a quarter of it.

I'm curious if you'd be comfortable if the people who manage your investment portfolio or retirement accounts were to act that way. Everyone always complains about the other guy being greedy, but seems to overlook their own behavior or that kind of behavior when it's beneficial to them. No one would be happy if their bank forsook their fiduciary duties and lent money irresponsibly and lost their depositors money because they didn't want be seen as money chasers.

It's your money though. Use it how you will. Just don't complain if it doesn't work out the way you wished it would have. The only sort of charity that ought to exist is personal charity. Even that is not immune to scammers and those who would try to take advantage of others, but it limits the damage that can be done.

Not sure who you're listening to, but I don't hear a lot of people saying that. The technique of trying something, discovering what goes wrong, fixing it, and trying again seems to be working as a development strategy for SpaceX.

People do, however, make a lot of fun of Elon's wildly optimistic predictions of how soon products will reach market (and how soon he will be flying people to Mars. I think we can safely say that he will not launch people to Mars by 2024.)

How so? I don't see how hovering makes any difference at all... it's just a waste of fuel, increasing gravity loss. It's nicer from a controllability standpoint, but SpaceX has clearly perfected the hoverslam maneuver and once you have that down it makes more sense than to waste fuel hovering and translating. Bolting itself into the deck helps with rough seas, I suppose, but it seems unlikely you'd want to try landing in very rough conditions anyway.

Nah. They do it when it makes sense. They don't do it for Starlink launches because it's cheaper to launch a slightly lighter load and shorten turnaround time, to avoid waiting for the droneship to ferry the rocket back to land. Plus their launch cadence is so high that they'd need a big fleet of droneships. So they reserve those for paying customers who need the greater capacity. I don't think anything about New Glenn's capabilities changes those calculations.