OTOH, the streaming services face a problem of discovery that cable does not. With 500 cable channels, the only opportunity cost of trying a new show is time. To try a new streaming show, I have to add the whole price of the subscription to try one show. For example, I enjoy Star Trek shows and saw every episode that came out while I was alive on its first showing until the second episode of Discovery because it was streaming only (the first episode was broadcast on CBS) and exclusive to Paramount+. Since Star Trek is the only thing I know I would watch on Paramount+, it never seems worth subscribing.

First movers have a big advantage(Netflix) as well as bundled services that you already have(Amazon Prime). Few networks have a brand as a whole, the notable exceptions being Disney/ABC and HBO, so network-branded streaming services can't leverage that brand. Stupidly HBO tried not using their brand. OTOH, Apple does have a strong brand, they are bundling with purchases you are already making, and they are also doing some non-exclusive and cross-licensing deals.

The ad-free nature of HBO et al. is a property of those specific channels, not cable TV.

Cable TV originated as community antenna television. Network feeds were received by large central antennas and the last-mile distribution was by wire. The network feeds could be over-the-air broadcast networks, satellite networks, or pay TV like HBO or Showtime. The first two categories are transmitted with ad slots in situ, the last does not have any ad slots*. The term "cable channel" was used for the later two categories as they were not available over-the-air via standard in-set tuners.

*: Some people whine that when a steaming service promoting other programs on the same service constitutes advertising, in which case the premium channels have also had advertising all along.

"In the US you mostly use rails for slow moving cargo,"

This is primarily because US rail companies hate running railroads, and seek to degrade the experience whenever possible so people will stop asking them to carry their freight.

Fast container trains are at least as fast as trucks, but have the advantage that you don't have to pay for one operator per trailer/container.

"less FCC-moderated content "

These days, Brendan Carr is trying to police your speech anyway.

On the upside, the regional sports networks are disappearing up their own asses.

"I'm old enough to remember when the selling point of cable TV was that you could pay for the content on the front end, and then not have ads constantly interrupting your viewing. "

Not only did cable companies not offer this, it is not technically feasible to offer this. The add slots are already in the feed transmitted to the cable companies, where the local ads are inserted in the slots allocated for that. There's no way to get the ads slots back out without eventually getting ahead of the transmitted feed and having to sit on dead air for a while.

"Leopards eating faces"

The original citation for the Leopards Eating Faces Party, by author Adrian Bott: https://x.com/Cavalorn/status/...
"'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party."

It's a reference to people being surprised by consequences of their actions that are not just obvious side effects but the the entire point, and thereby eliciting no sympathy.

And now I've explained the joke, so I'll go sit in the corner.

Is this navy AmeriCAN or AmeriCAN'T?

-1, uninsightful

a) Whether in a specific instance it turns out okay is irrelevant. Operational security should be a habit, and if you want an exception it should only be permitted after review. If someone disabled the firewall at your company but no breach occurred, you you say that's permissible? of course not.

(Note, this is different that private individuals noting that the vessel was seen, as they are not part of the organization and have no extraordinary obligation to that organization.)

b) The information exfiltrated is not just where the vessel is but also that a particular group is deployed with that vessel.

c) As noted by other commenters, it creates a security risk for the individual as they are now associated with the vessel. In addition, that now creates risks for people with second degree associations.

"Indeed, both jurisdictions can weigh in."

Does the internet occur in both locations? In neither?

"If it was purely humans passing code after humans writing the code... would this have happened?"
Have you ever met any humans?

"4Chan doesn't operate in the UK. British people can access it"

If 4Chan doesn't operate in the UK, do the users in the UK operate in the US?

If a user in the UK *bought* something form a site in the US, but did not give them any money in return, does the user in the UK have any debt or liability to the site?

If the site in the US did not provide the purchased item, does the site have any liability to the user under UK law?

"This isn't a multinational company and it is not in any way subject to any laws other than US law."

Where does the internet occur? What does it mean to liability if cause and effect are separated by a border?

Suppose two people are standing in opposite sides of an international border. One person shoots the other and the second person dies. In one country there was no death; in the other there is no perpetrator. Did a murder occur in any jurisdiction?

Suppose a guy named Bob gave inaccurate advice that what publicly posted instead of a private reply, and someone else acted on it and caused a security incident. You would not say that Bob went rogue, you'd say there were insufficient controls in place to avoid human error.

"A human programmer would not have "

A human programmer DID. That's how we got here.