So youâ(TM)re opposed to the regulations that help American EV manufacturers but not opposed to the ones that force Americans to pay more for every car? Tariffs are why EVs are expensive. And the subsidies donâ(TM)t really make them cheaper for consumers either. Chinese EVs are perfectly well inexpensive.

If capitalism canâ(TM)t compete with Communism with Chinese Characteristics then it deserves to lose.

I'm not sure why there aren't competent engineers working at these places. They keep making the dumbest decisions possible, it seems.

Like, put the datacenter underground and it doesn't need as much cooling.

Put the datacenter in an underground chamber built like a yakchal and it needs even less cooling.

The problem is that the datacenter engineers don't seem to know very much about how to build things, as evidenced by their continued massive use of power and freshwater. And their validation of the classic "they forgot to account for the weight of the books."

Itâ(TM)s a bad study. Lacked an obvious control.

Honestly itâ(TM)s the fault of the IRB involved.

Neurodivergent brains have about 2-3 times the synaptic connections that neurotypical brains do. They are physically different, distinctly. It is not some deficiency in a neurotypical brain.

This basic fact makes neurological research that doesnâ(TM)t control for the known-different kinds of brains unreliable. They have failed to create a scientifically-valid experiment because they didnâ(TM)t control for an obvious physical difference. Mixed the apples in with the oranges and tried to draw a valid conclusion.

It may be nothing here - there could be no difference for this purpose. But we donâ(TM)t know that for sure because of this poorly designed study lacking an obvious control.

slsia

I realize that this is Slashdot, &tc... but please read the full opinion. As it makes clear, the Supreme Court (in an 8-0 decision, with the Chief recused) agrees that this aspect of the patent system is broken. As it also makes clear, the responsibility for fixing the broken patent system lies entirely with Congress.

This opinion is a good example of the Supreme Court essentially telling Congress to get its act together and fix the broken patent system. In the meantime, the Court reiterates what the problem is with the patent system in this case, and provides a solution for Congress to implement. But the Court is not empowered to fix the broken statute by itself, so it has to essentially settle for restating what the current broken statute says, and enforcing the law that's on the books.

Since the broken statute is not unconstitutional - Congress was empowered by the Constitution to act, and it did, poorly - the Court can only point out the flaw and hope the Congress fixes it.