"Oil companies didn't create the emissions, people did. We're the one setting their product on fire."

Speaking of weapons level stupid ...

"To cease all production and consign us all to a pre-industrial way of living? "

This is weapons level stupid and or disingenuous. Do you actually think a) that's the point of the suit b) the person who filed it wants that?

It's mostly a bad idea because it will not succeed, and in the current judicial climate (no pun intended) of the USA may very well set some kind of precent at complete odds with the goal of the lawsuit.

And I say this as somebody who thinks the people behind such a lawsuit are not in it for money or notoriety or whatever. People can be driven by emotion for certain things that are right - you know, like if your mom died on a night that was substantially warmer than you remember experiencing when you were a kid. Suing oil companies could *very well* help with "the transition" as you call it, if only to decimate their ability to lobby for policy - people really don't understand how subsidized their industry is.

None the less, what appears to really sell right now in the US is antagonization so here we are. It's somehow "our fault" witch to me smacks of somebody who really isn't particularly interested in the larger scale details.

That's a very naive understanding of how things operate in courts of law.

"yes we were already doing most of that that, but .. uh .. now we're doing that for you, Mr Trump! Here's a nice press release for you, your favorite kind of release! Please be nice to us!"

Criminal gangs are notorious for how dumb they are and the mistakes they make. Most of them probably treat SMS as secure.

All of which said, my reading is that this is for extreme situations such as terrorism. But the same method could be used to monitor criminal groups, and in turn if the barrier lowers for that, dissidents etc are next. With politics drifting to totalitarianism in so many currently democratic countries right now, Austria might want to think twice about adopting something like this. Defending against terrorism is understandable, but what value is it if you prevent a bomb at a concert but end up with the next Hitler being able to control everyone's communications by hijacking your anti-terror apparatus?

How else would you get firmware updates? ;-)

My biggest problem with the Marvel (sans Spiderman) and DCEU stuff was the insistence on a format that made it hard, if not impossible, to explore what the actual consequences of the superpower was.

The original Superman films (at least, one and two, maybe three if it hadn't been badly written), and the first Wonder Woman, were examples of the genre done right. Likewise the Ms Marvel TV show which added both a "I have powers" and a "Culture you're not familiar with" thing to make it genuinely interesting. Whereas the whole Avengers or X-Men "Let's just lob as many superheroes in as possible, powered or unpowered, into the story" thing resulted in the kinds of cliche the GP was talking about. And yes, that does mean people are more inclined to enjoy the unpowered hero stories.

> but I bet your left nut against your right nut Andor will be canceled. Very low chance there will be a Season 3.

Nonexistent, given it was only supposed to be two seasons.

You know they haven't put out any movies yet, right?

Gunn is in charge of a full reboot of the DC stuff. The DCEU were the "previous guys".

It's arguably not even the same corporation any more, given Discovery bought WB.

To be fair, Disney making Captain Marvel a woman and Black Panther a black person, and Ms Marvel a Muslim, is just absurd pandering to the liberal marxist left wing homosexual agenda ;-)

It's worth noting we haven't really seen a new generation DC movie. The DCEU thing was a failure, definitely. It remains to be seen what Gunn will do with the thing, the new Superman film looks potentially interesting and a step away from Snyder's Batman-fan take but, I mean, there have been at least three bad Superman films before the DCEU even came into being.

Anyway, point is we don't know what the new movies will be like.

Also, Legends of Tomorrow was the best Arrowverse, fight me! ;-) (OK, minus season 1, and seasons 4 onwards weren't as high quality but...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I wonder if they do the same thing with the ad supported accounts? There's no good reason to ban account sharing, or impose restrictions on simultaneous connections, for something primarily funded through advertising. Of course, there's no good reason to charge a subscription fee either, and they do that.

The answer to your question right now is if I were Netflix, I'd try to merge with Disney+ and then quit as I (or rather the current management of Netflix) have no idea what I'm doing. But there certainly are multiple ways to ensure a proper, pre-ads, Netflix is only available to a paying subscriber. As a basic example, if there's a suspicion that you're not the actual subscriber, you could just ask them to verify a random part of their credit card number. People share passwords, they do not share credit cards.

Also making sure that the multiple devices tied to an account all check in to a common IPv4 address/IPv6 prefix on a regular basis would seem reasonable to me. As long as a device has been seen on an address shared by the majority of devices on that account, there's no reason to prompt for additional authentication information.

They're expensive ($18 is a fucking rip off, especially given they're now answerable to advertisers - that "cheap" $8 (when is $8 cheap?) thing impacts those who don't want ads too), and their content sucks - unfunny comedy standup specials, cheap "action" movies with the same four horseactors of the apocalypse (Dwayne Johnson, Ryan Reynolds, Gal Gadot, and Jack Black), and usually what's left that's good is only good by accident and cancelled after no more than three seasons, often sooner.

Them trying to avoid you sharing your account is at the bottom of my list of things I dislike about them especially as it's relatively easy to bypass (set up a VPN with the egress point being your home's internet FFS)

> DEI in this context meaning they were not hired on the basis of being best qualified.

I'm convinced conservatives think that's what it means because they assume it stands for Don, Eric, and Ivanka.

I think everyone's kind of in the right ballpark but still failing to hit the ball here. It's a bit more complex than that:

> The decision making was so poor they used a wireless controller as the only real controls.

Devil's advocate maybe, but the "wireless controller", a Logitech, was arguably one of the better decisions they made. They took an off-the-shelf device with a proven design and few fault scenarios. Would a wired one have been better? Well, if it was attached to the wall, sure, if it wasn't then you're looking at a long cable that's being constantly stretched and bent. It'd have lasted as long as those headphones you used to buy every year in the 2000s and 2010s, where all of a sudden you have to wiggle the wire to get stereo, or audio in both ears.

> They not only picked questionable materials to build it from, they picked questionable sources for that material, skipped doing any real testing of the material while ignoring legitimate concerns.

Yes and no. The main complaint here is "They picked carbon fiber" which isn't really fair: carbon fiber, it's true, has less compressive strength than a similar thickness of steel, but carbon fiber could be made to work if the sheets are wound thick enough. The consensus is that OceanGate cheaped out and both (as you correctly state) got a questionable type of carbon fiber (the source was fine, the carbon fiber though was basically their rejects), and didn't use enough of it.

Why did they cheap out? It may well be because using enough carbon fiber to compete with steel would have resulted in a vehicle with no advantages (cost or weight) over steel, I don't know. It was f---ing dumb though. I'm having difficulty understanding why this couldn't have been explained to Rush in a way he understood, or if he was just that stup... OK, he was probably that stupid, but nonetheless, "We need MOAH" seems like something that idiot might have listened to? No idea.

> Hardwired controls with wireless for convenience; override the wireless in an emergency.

I've not seen anything to suggest the sub's controls weren't overridable. That said, it obviously wasn't a factor in this implosion. Having back-up controls is, obviously, good, and necessary: having them be wired vs wireless is a call that's not that clear cut.