10TB 3.5" drives are common enough. 1000 of those could easily fit in a station wagon.

The cost of maintaining a presence on X or just about any other top-20 social media platform isn't much. Even if every posts gets "only" 1000 impressions per year it's still cheap marketing.

There is a good reason to leave X though: If posting on X makes you look bad, then leave.

But don't use "it's not worth our time/money/resources" as an excuse, not unless or impressions-per-year drop well below current levels.

* No reasonable RAM upgrade path
* No reasonable storage upgrade path
* for some models, difficulty replacing battery

I would love to get something like the Apple Neo laptop if I knew I could extend its life to 8-10 years by upgrading hardware at the 4-5 year mark at a reasonable cost and replace the battery as needed at a reasonable cost.

Without those options, I'm looking at non-Apple hardware, which means a non-Apple OS and not being in the Apple ecosystem and not giving Apple the revenue stream that goes with being in that ecosystem.

I hope someone at Apple sees this and lets the right people know that their decisions to make hardware upgrades difficult or impossible is costing them future revenue.

At least one of the late-1980s/early-1990s Mac desktops and at least one IBM* enterprise-fleet-targeted desktop were designed for very fast in-the-field repair by corporate IT staff. By repair I mean "unscrew the case, replace the faulty component, screw the case back together, and get the customer back up and running ASAP."

I personally saw computers from both companies that had ONE screw, not counting customer-installed security screws/locking devices. Everything else was held in place by latches, friction, or other easy-to-manipulate no-tools-required connections. You could literally replace any one of the major components with less than 5 minutes of downtime once you'd done it a few times. Floppy drive, check, hard drive, check, power supply, check, motherboard, check, add-in boards, check, various cables, check, case, check. OK replacing the case might take 10 minutes but only because it requires moving all of the other components.

* IBM sold off its PC computing line to Lenovo in the 1990s or 2000s.

The future is to use AI to screen code before it is published to the world.

For code written or influenced by an AI, have a different, independently-developed AI screen it for security bugs.

They were named after people who did some pretty unsavory things during their times in power.

Doing unspeakably evil acts is part of many "successful business models." Whether it's mafia-style threats of "pay me or I will rape/kill your family," eliminate-your-competition/opponent mass-murders-and-take-their-property-as-spoils like you see in some wars ("ethnic cleansing" anyone?), or actually selling the "work product" of crimes (e.g. selling stolen goods or filming a rape and selling the photographs), there is money to be made from acts of evil.

Wait until people are dead long enough for most skeletons to come out of the closet before naming a building after someone.

640 days after death ought to be enough for most people.

Still, Slashdot doesn't have to play along with their weasel wording. For example, "ergonomic collars that deliver an electric pulse" - just say "shock collar". Don't help them whitewash what they're talking about.

The linked article is dated March 31, 2026.

You're confusing the importance of avoiding Kessler syndrome in LEO with the difficulty of causing Kessler syndrome. GEO debris can potentially remain there for millions of years before interactions between the gravitational pull of the Sun, Earth, and Moon sufficiently perturb it. LEO debris remains for weeks to months. You have to have many orders of magnitude more debris in LEO to trigger Kessler Syndrome, where the rate of collisions exceeds the rate of debris loss.

The fact that a LEO Kessler Syndrome would also be short is something that exists on top of that.

It's also worth nothing that not only are modern satellites not only vastly better at properly disposing of themselves than they were in the 1970s when Kessler Syndrome was proposed, but they're also vastly better at avoiding debris strikes. All of these factors are multiplicative together.

Lol, I was thinking of this instead ;)

People forget that the primary concerns about Kessler Syndrome were about geosynchronous orbit, which used to be where all the most important satellites went (many of course still go there, but not the megaconstellations). It takes a long, long time for debris to leave GEO. But LEO is a very different beast.

They said it's internal rather than a collision, so probably a failed COPV would be my guess.

Yeah. In particular:

with fragments likely to fall to Earth over the next few weeks

LEO FTW. Kessler Syndrome is primarily a risk if you put too much stuff with too poor of an end-of-life disposal rate in GEO. End-of-life without proper disposal rates have declined exponentially since Kessler Syndrome was first proposed (manufacturers both understand the importance more, and do a better job, of decreasing the rate of failures before deorbit - in the past, sometimes there wasn't even attempts to dispose of a craft at end-of-life). And now we're increasingly putting stuff in LEO, where debris falls out of orbit relatively quickly. It's not impossible in LEO, esp. with higher LEO orbits - but it's much more difficult.

Or to put it another way: fragments can't build up to hit other things if they're gone after just a couple weeks.

And this trend is likely to continue - a lower percentage of premature failures, and decreasing altitudes / reentry times. Concerning ever-decreasing altitudes, we've already been doing this via use of ion engines to provide more reboost (with mission lifespans designed for only several years before running out of propellant, instead of decades like the giant GEO ones), but there's an increasing interest in "sky skimming" satellites that function in a way somewhat reminiscent of a ramjet - instead of krypton or xenon as the propellant for an ion engine, the sparse atmospheric air itself is the propellant, so the craft can in effect fly indefinitely until it fails, wherein it quite rapidly enters the denser atmosphere and burns up.