What about domestic use? Can we halt that too?

Did they have any to begin with? I don't think this will help them at all, but their alternative is to drown anyway. For reference, their stock is down 85% over a 5 year period. Maybe this will keep them afloat for a while longer (or more likely make them a more attractive buyout target) or it's just a last gasp for air on the way out (which is where they're less attractive buyout target, but eventually become cheap enough for someone to scoop up).

Presumably it's possible to have freedom of movement while still prohibiting people from establishing residence there. Crossing into Mexico from the U.S. is as hassle free as getting across the border (getting back in is another story) but if I tried to live there without authorization the Mexican government would deport me.

Also Dresden already has fabs owned by GlobalFoundries which were fabs for AMD before they were spun off, so Germany and Dresden in particular make a lot of sense.

Just tell her to buy you a nice shirt. Then when she visits make sure to wear it. She'll appreciate it at lot and if you're anything like me she has better fashion sensibilities and will pick out something nice. One or two new shirts per year is enough to maintain a wardrobe. Your mom is going to want to get you something regardless of you having outgrown birthday or Christmas presents decades ago and their wiring will make them disappointed if you tell them to stop.

Mom is happy that she gets to give a thoughtful gift even if baby is all grown up and if you're like me you'll be grateful that it saves you the time having to look for new clothes yourself. Maybe it's unthinkable when you're younger, but clothes for Christmas is the biggest win-win I've ever stumbled into. Younger readers can double dip and get socks and underwear from grandma.

The upper management at Microsoft is stupid enough to do that, but it won't fix their problems. They have some valuable IP that can sell millions of copies, but they bought a lot of past-their prime studios and have stuffed them with even more bloat to try to churn out sequels faster. Either they never read or understand the Mythical Man-Month. The people are n charge have no real understanding of games' development and treat like something akin to a factory job that can be scaled by adding more lines and workers.

Letting (or making) the developers use AI might make them more productive, but if the only thing it does is allow them to churn out uninspired crap that no one wants to play faster than otherwise, it won't fix their revenue problem. It'll only allow the gradual decline to go on for a bit longer.

Most people don't need free speech because they have nothing to say.
Most people don't need guns because they have nothing to shoot.
Most people don't need to worry about housing soldiers because military personnel have taxpayer funded housing.
Most people don't need to worry about their stuff being unlawfully searched because they have nothing to hide.
Most people don't need to worry about incriminating themselves because they don't commit crimes.
Most people don't need their trials to be public because they don't get put on trial.
Most people don't need the guaranteed ability to sue someone because most people don't file lawsuits.
Most people don't need to worry about excessive bail being imposed because most people don't get arrested.
Most people don't need to worry about any of those rights being used against other rights.
Most people don't care whether a right is granted by the state or federal government.

Fortunately for those who DO find themselves in a place where the government would cause issues in these matters, a bunch of old guys a few hundred years ago had the presence of mind to realize that the point of rights isn't because "most people" need to exercise them regularly, it's to create limits so that "most people" *don't" need to exercise them regularly.

Was anyone looking to build a data center in Seattle in the first place? Unless they were going to build something small, there's not enough space to build a new one and repurposing existing buildings for a data center might not be possible even if the rent weren't prohibitively expensive compared to building outside of the metro area. Even if a company like Microsoft wanted to build close to their campus, they'd be building a data center in Redmond instead of Seattle proper. There's still have a much easier time building outside of town because finding a few hundred acres that aren't already developed in a metro area is difficult as well as hideously expensive.

Forget the medical emergency stuff. Every pervert on the island can now helicopter their dick in full view of children knowing that there's no way that the kids will be able to record the crime and expose the exposers.

Some of those things are probably profitable if they can gut most of the staff and centralize the maintenance work while cashing the cheques from old people who signed up and keep paying. AOL has been coasting on that for decades already, so it's little wonder they and similar sites have wound up on the island of misfit internet companies. They're not making very much money for the valuation they're after though. The notion that the dozens of millions in profit will be able to turn into hundreds of millions or billions is a pipe dream. This IPO is the private investors trying to get out before the customer base dies off and the cheques stop clearing.

Maybe this is better than the Google approach of killing it off entirely even if it could eke out a meager existence, but it's a business that has no future. Dead or dying internet platforms don't come back. This company is just a hospice for websites and tech companies some people remember from years ago and haven't used in almost as long. There might be money to be made there, but it's not a billion dollar company.

He's probably using the term more loosely, but it is impossible. The human brain works in ways that no Turing Machine and therefore no algorithm can replicate. I think that it's possible to build something that can function that way using existing computer hardware that's really just simulating a human brain if such can't be directly implemented in hardware, but we're a long way off from being able to do that even if the current crop of LLMs have fooled a lot of people into believing they can already replace a human.

Assuming that he or anyone else does succeed, they'll have no better understanding of how what they made actually works than we do of how our own brain actually works. Whatever it is that's going on up there, it certainly isn't algorithmic in nature.

For all the positive, pro-consumer elements of Steam, unless Steam builds some sort of generic network abstraction layer into the Steam client, I don't think that swapping out "a dependence on Gamespy" for "a dependence on Steam" is really the answer here...

Back in 2004, *everyone* had to port forward in order to host a game server. That's the alternative to "let EA host it until they don't feel like it anymore". The point is to give the control back to gamers, but responsibility comes with that - specifically, "how to do a port forward". More to your point, it probably would have been smart to see if you and the friend capable of hosting the game could get a session going with just the two of you, then invite everyone else once you had the procedures in place. Again, the logistics aren't Epic's problem.

There will always be a group who favors simplicity over capability, but it's not like, in the case of UT2004, Epic added some sort of technological barriers to actively prevent you from playing the game, because it DOES still work perfectly once the port forward is in place. Similarly, the expectation isn't that a game is going to still have millions of players after it's EOL, it's to ensure that the few-thousand who *do* still want to play it aren't limited explicitly by the absence of server-side code. "My friends and I can't port forward" isn't that limitation - "the server-side code was never publicly released and the enthusiasts who attempted to reverse engineer it got DMCA slapped" *is*,

Also, there are still some public UT2004 servers you could mostly-one-click (copy/pasting an IP address would be close-enough to what you're describing, I'd hope):
https://pwc-gaming.com/game-se...

And, if you were a bit more interested, a cheap VPS can run LinuxGSM, a Linux build explicitly designed to be a game server for dozens of games like UT2004 that have the capability of connecting to custom dedicated servers:
https://docs.linuxgsm.com/game... ...the thing is, UT2004 is kinda the textbook example of what these games *should* look like - entirely playable in single-player mode *today*, and shipping with both map creation software and dedicated server software, including a Linux build...and it was so well built, that one need not even emulate Windows XP to do it; the game runs just fine on Windows 11 and on GPUs that didn't exist at the time. The Crew was a powder keg precisely because it was the opposite of UT2004 - dependent on central servers for no technical reason.

And give up on all the potential revenue they can suck out of these students through the student loans they receive just by being admitted. The universities will kick out the ones that are just there to party, but they'll gladly string along those who can just barely make it. Those are the students who fall into a sunk cost trap and will spend six years getting a degree so it's even better. The universities don't have to deal with the financial consequences and because they're all doing it to some degree it never causes serious reputational problems.

The universities will not fix the problem themselves because it would require the administration taking an axe to the university administration itself. If you look at the graphs the ratio between students and professors has remained stable over the last several decades as U.S. universities expanded, but the size of the administration has grown disproportionately and keeping it fed requires ever more revenue to support the ever expanding administration.

It's anything that will cause a strong enough emotional response to get you to turn your brain off for long enough that you click on a link, call a number, or something else to fall further into their claws. Amazon orders are common enough that the scam doesn't need to be tailored. I've seen others recently reporting to be from the city about unpaid parking tickets or from the state motor vehicles department. I used to get regular spam calls and texts about fraudulent activity on a credit card I didn't have from a bank I've never done business with. They don't need to be particularly good if the 1% that they successfully target fit the criteria and panic at the request for immediate action.

The RBMK from 1980s Chernobyl is hardly a "modern" reactor. That's from ancient history. Even the RBMK reactors that were operating in the 1990s are hardly like those operating in the 1980s, after the Chernobyl incident the remaining RBMK reactors were decommissioned or updated with new safety systems.

Does anyone claim that a Tesla car could explode because of reports of exploding Fords and Chevys from decades ago? Does anyone claim that an electric car can't go more than 80 miles on a charge because that's all the GM EV1 could do? While I know someone will want to point this out as yet another bad car analogy but given the huge gains in safety, efficiency, and more in cars in only 30 years, and compare that to gains in nuclear power technology over the same time there's many parallels.

It's mind boggling that you believe a 40 year old meltdown in the USSR is somehow relevant to nuclear power safety in the USA today.

Who is listening to this BS any more? What makes anyone believe that the meltdown at Chernobyl is any kind of argument against building next generation nuclear power today?

I'm seeing huge shifts in the public attitude on nuclear fission power in the last decade or so, with perhaps the most notable shift around about 2020 when Andrew Yang was advocating for new nuclear power plants during his campaign for POTUS in 2019/2020. Yang obviously didn't win the election but he did force Democrats running against him to comment on the issue. Those outright opposed to nuclear power dropped out first. Those that supported nuclear power hung on a bit longer. The last to hold out were those that offered stupid "split the baby" options like keeping old nuclear power plants running but not building any new plants.

It's thinking like that that created the fear of nuclear power from Fukushima. TEPCO had new reactor units 7 & 8 planned at Fukushima to replace the older units 1, 2, & 3, the units that self destructed after being hit with a tsunami. Had those units been closed as originally scheduled, and units 4, 5, & 6 been in a maintenance shutdown as they were at the time of the earthquake and tsunami, then we could have expected units 7 & 8 to keep operating through the event as they were designed to hold up to such an event. People opposed to nuclear power like @phantomfive are creating the safety problems in nuclear power that scare them so much.

We aren't going to close down nuclear power in the USA any time soon because it produces nearly 20%, or about 100 GW, of the electricity in the USA and there's no quick and easy path to replacing that. KEPCO built about 5.5 GW of new nuclear power capacity in UAE over about 12 years, not including the planning time before that. What would it take for renewable energy construction companie to produce similar amounts of electrical output in the same time period?

What's your plan for generating electricity, or energy more generally, for the future? More of the same with wind and solar? I see more nuclear fission power in our future, or more energy shortages and the rising energy costs that come with those shortages.