IMO, given the amount of money involved and the patent absurdity of the government's behavior, the only rational thing to do is ignore their order and continue to build the wind farm anyway. The government has no legitimate legal right to take back a long-term contractual agreement like that. Once they signed on the dotted line, the lease is valid. Any national security concerns, if legitimate, should have been settled before the government entered into the agreement. Now, it's too late. Tough s**t, Donald Duck.

The government has only one option at that point, and that is to take the wind farm company to court. At that point, keeping the reasoning secret from the judge will not be possible, and the judge will see right through the farce and order them to do what the judge ordered them to do before — live up to their agreements. Realistically, national security concerns are implausible, and more to the point, even if a national security concern does exist, that's the government's problem to figure out how to prevent it from being a national security issue. They have no legal right to coerce a corporation to act on their behalf in doing so, absent a law being passed by Congress, which they have not done.

The only alternative is to waste years in court trying to get a judge to overturn the executive order and then wait for them to file another one in six months, resulting their use of the land being a constant yo-yo. The only rational thing to do, IMO, is to force the government's hand by making it clear that you won't be bullied, and making it clear that every future interaction along similar lines will end the same way — with you continuing to operate under the terms of your existing agreement and the government repeatedly and expensively failing to compel you to do otherwise.

Well... maybe. Tesla premium connectivity costs $10 a month or $99 per year when purchased annually ($8.25 per month equivalent). My Apple watch uses a fraction of the bandwidth by comparison, effectively doing nothing more than receiving text messages and notifications. (Phone calls on a watch replace a cell phone on the same line, so they really don't increase usage.) Yet service for my Apple watch costs $15 a month.

So judging by the state of the market today, buying service from a phone company is likely to cost considerably more than buying it from a car company, assuming the car company doesn't use it as a profit center, because car companies get a deep discount by buying service in bulk for a million cars.

Whether you can safely assume car companies won't use it as a profit center is another question, but there's always mobile hotspots if they do, so there are limits to how much they can overcharge.

Most Linux distros install without the need to recompile. I have had to do it in very niche circumstances like specific niche hardware. One time it was because the MIPS CPU I was using needed a specific compile flag.

Only when something goes wrong, which one hopes occurs with declining frequency. Of course, this past weekend probably cancels out the last five years in one day... :-D

The mindset that for Linux to win, Windows has to lose. Linux does not care really about beating Windows. But I have found is that more and more of the server space is being taken over by Linux as fewer and fewer software relies on Windows specifically. Also Windows has almost 0% of the smartphone market which has Android (based on Linux) in a clear commanding lead.

I don't know what you use but CUPS has unified and simplified printing across Linux and Unix platforms since the early 2000s. Windows printing unfortunately can be a mess as it relies on drivers from manufacturers. Case in point, I had a Samsung printer/scanner/copier. It ran fine in Linux, MacOS, and Windows. Then HP acquired the Samsung print business. Drivers became buggy. Drivers tries to install unnecessary applications like HP Smart App as some functions simply do not work without it. Meanwhile printing with Linux still worked fine as it was open sourced long ago. Eventually I got rid of all printers since I did not print very much anymore.

Game awards bring publicity to games. If the general public did not know about Expedition 33 before it won Game of the Year, they do now. After the award, I saw many YouTube game streamers load new videos along the lines of "Since Expedition 33 won Game of the Year, I bought it and streaming game play."

Call of Duty Black Op7 sold 80% fewer copies than Black Ops 6 a year ago.
Hunter Monster Wilds is being outsold by the 4 year old Hunter Monster Rise. .
Mindseye had less than 4000 concurrent players at launch

1) Your list does not have Call of Duty nor Mindseye anywhere. 2) Your list is ranking and does not show actual sales numbers. If fewer people are buying AAA games then being ranked does little to show that that they are being sold at lower rates.

Business do not want employees playing video games at work on company machines. If an employee wants to play with their Switch or Steam Deck on their breaks, they do not have issues with that.

Businesses do not want it and they generally control what software is installed on Enterprise Windows. And again, most corporate machines use integrated graphics which will perform poorly for games. I am not sure why you are trying so hard to get Xbox gaming on corporate machines.

Oh they are starting to realize it. For example, 5 of the 6 Game of the Year nominees in 2025 were from independent studios and not the big developers. Three of the games (Expedition 33, Silksong, Hades II) were priced below the "standard" price of $70. Consumers are starting to reject $70 games they feel are mediocre or poorly made (Call of Duty Black Ops 7, Monster Hunter Wilds, Mindseye, etc)

It doesn't necessarily indicate that. You're speculating.

It is entirely possible that Waymo Driver truly doesn't know how to handle that edge case. That's probably not the sort of thing that you'd have a lot of training data for, after all. However, I can think of at least five other possible explanations that are also plausible.

Option 1: In the interest of safety, they required the cars to phone home to report a traffic light down and confirm before proceeding, but because so many lights went down all at once, the remote operator team became overloaded.

Option 2: Some human driver did something significantly unexpected, and the Waymo driver software concluded that a wreck was imminent and assumed that it did something wrong, and stopped rather than risk making the problem worse.

Option 3: Those intersections were in areas that were covered mainly by secondary cellular towers that lacked proper battery backup, and the network went down. The remote operators were unable to take control over the vehicles to get them started again after one of the two possible explanations above.

Option 4: The network went down and the software has a bug that causes it to fail in some unexpected way when the car can't communicate with the central servers.

Option 5: The network went down and the underlying cars have disabling technology that causes them to shut down when they lose communication (for theft prevention reasons). However, I think that one would also require satellites to be unavailable, which is not too likely.

We won't really know for sure until someone at Waymo analyzes the data and publicly provides an explanation for what happened, which probably won't be until next year, because I suspect that a majority of Waymo employees are probably gone for the holidays this week and next. :-)

No, because Waymo cars are actually autonomous and thus don't have a human driver in them. The only thing they can do is phone home and ask a human to plan a path for them or otherwise tell them what to do. And that takes longer than if a human were in the car driving. There's no real-time remote driving (for obvious safety reasons).

It's very relevant. It means that they don't have to care about safety. They can drive through the down light without stopping and trust a human to intervene. They can stop without going and trust a human to intervene.

But more than that, they have the luxury of treating it as a stop sign without worrying about whether the traffic light really is out or just not being detected because of a regression in their image recognition model, because if they are wrong, a human will intervene.

So having a system that is human-supervised relieves Tesla and Cruise of a lot of the responsibility for mistakes and makes them able to enable riskier features.

Apparently you have never driven in San Francisco. These aren't freeways, and these aren't suburbs. They're mostly dense urban streets a la Manhattan. You either have a continuous row of cars parked along one side or both, or you'll have driving lanes. There are no shoulders. If you get very lucky, there might be one spot free, but not enough spots for four cars at a single intersection — probably not at any time, day or night, realistically.

So in situations where stopping in the middle of the street is safer than continuing, then it is, in fact, a safety feature, because there is rarely (if ever) a third choice.

Businesses would probably not like that. First of all, obviously businesses do not want employees gaming during work hours. Having Xbox on them makes it harder to do stop that. Second, many business machines are not very good gaming machines as many of them use integrated graphics as the cheapest option. Securing machines by requiring Windows 11 is something a business can justify. Buy gaming machines with discrete graphics is something they cannot.

The safe fallback on the freeway is typically to pull over onto the shoulder. Unfortunately, city streets in SF do not have those. If they did, they would have been turned into a parking lane or another driving lane already.