It all seems to originate from an X post (linked above), where the poster simply claims that "They wrongfully froze all of my tokens, stripped me of my right to vote on governance proposals, and have threatened to permanently destroy my tokens by “burning” them—all without any proper justification."

There's literally nothing else here to even hope to understand what is going on, other than one guy claiming he's getting screwed...and a bunch of anti-trump slash-dotters saying WHAT DID YOU EXPECT

You'll have to point at something that backs this statement up, since it seems fairly clear to me your statement could follow simply from the premise, i.e. people that arm themselves may be more likely to be attacked by armed individuals in general, and that's why they arm themselves. Additionally, it seems likely that gun owners do have an increased risk of some kind of gun-related incident, simply because owning a gun implies accepting the risks of having one (e.g., being subject to potential accidental discharge, amongst a host of potential other things).

A quick googling (duckduckgoing, technically) of "are armed people more likely to be killed by armed assailants?" found these in the top responses:

The Science of Guns Proves Arming Untrained Citizens Is a Bad Idea, an article that quotes statistics that purport to say it's a bad idea, where many of the items quoted don't necessarily follow based on the data.

and

Do Armed Civilians Stop Active Shooters More Effectively Than Uniformed Police?, an abstract that purports that "Civilians with permits stopped the attacks more frequently and faced a lower risk of being killed or injured than police"...but the link itself is only an abstract. In the article, it extends the FBI data with other data sets (likely ones supporting the claim).

NOTE: Did not dig deep into either article / publication.

In short: good data is hard to come by, data sets are not typically exceptionally large, and biased views seem to be the norm here ("left" or "right").

Take it a step further:

You hire someone to manage/investigate a specific thing, and 90 out of 100 things that cross their desk every month (yes, yes, numbers made up) are completely trivial, and can be handled by the one person you can afford to pay to handle this kind of thing. Now that person wants to spend all of their time handling the 10 things that aren't trivial, and doing 9 of those 10 things would take ALL month, leaving 91 things left undone. What's worse, that 1 remaining thing would require the whole month on it's own. Suddenly you have one person trying to do the work of at least three people, and you can afford one person...and now that one person wants to spend their ENTIRE MONTH on that 1 thing, leaving 99 things left undone.

To me it looks like a Pareto numbers game, and unless you're will to invest a large amount of time and money to get answers, it'll always be more efficient to maximize the number of answers per unit time per cost invested, which means you'll only ever get to address the most trivial things in the inbox.

Don't see those too often, but they do happen.

Wikipedia on Betteridge's Law

Wasn't this whole approach to "repair" that's being used here enabled by the DMCA? So I don't think we can say something like "crime doesn't pay" when this company has just taken a horrible law and applied it to profit making. Is what they're doing unethical as hell? Oh Yeah. Illegal? Probably not.

Don't get me wrong...no one should be doing business with a company that takes this kind of position ("screw our customers all day long 'till the cows come home") w/r/t such expensive investments that are typically required for a small (farm) business to operate.

Repeal the damn DMCA already...it remains a bad law and it should be gone. Happy to see this outcome, but really, it isn't enough.

It's a systems engineering trade. It's been a while since I've worked on a space system, but...

You might bother because transmitting all that data down and waiting for a response takes more time than you have if you want to respond on the current orbit.
You might bother because the power cost of transmitting the data is on par with using stored energy on the platform to perform the computation locally.
You might bother because you want to be more efficient in your use of your communication link regarding the function you're performing on the AI HW (i.e. reserving link bandwidth for other stuff).
You might bother because you need to generate some heat to keep your electronics warm, and you get free results that would incur other costs (see above) when doing so.

There's probably a number of other reasons you'd bother, but I do agree AI in space seems to be the tone of the headline, and doing that just for the sake of doing that is kinda dumb.

I think I agree with the sentiment ("it's not worth the effort [to pirate music]"), but disagree that music streaming services are "cheap".

I did the math and at the rate I listen to (acquire/purchase) new music, the break even was about the same as buying an album a month, and that's probably more than I actually get, more like 5-8 a year. I acknowledge that my use case is likely still a bit niche compared to the typical users of say, Spotify.

There are other potential conveniences too: having an actual file; determining the storage/playback quality; storing your entire music library on a modern smart phone; etc.

The short answer, IMO is that it's (1) easier to integrate with cloud storage (e.g. NextCloud), (2) very compatible with MS office, and (3) is more mature w/r/t it's updates not breaking things, esp. w/r/t (2).

I pushed hard to get alternatives working with my NC instance, but OnlyOffice ended up being the better answer for those reasons above. Is it a full Office365 replacement? No, not if you use "advanced" features of MS office, where the definition of advanced varies greatly depending on if you're doing document work, spread sheet work, or presentation work, and where that definition definitely can include things that are easy to do in MS office but next to impossible to do in OnlyOffice. If MS office better integrated with my cloud instance (i.e. directly supported WebDav), I'd probably use it instead, but MS office really pushes integration with One Drive which I've no interest in having installed or otherwise using.

As a homelabber, I'm looking for the maximum utility solution, and at least currently for me, that's OnlyOffice. As a "bonus" OnlyOffice has a desktop variant for local file editing, should you be so inclined (although I'm trying to do almost everything in my cloud anymore).

What you're basically describing is a consequence of free market capitalism (perhaps a bit simplified), but fundamentally you have companies that desire to 1) optimize revenue (leading to less diversification of the "served market") and 2) a desire to suppress any competition that can/will arise to serve the under served market segment.

A well regulated market would encourage and allow the first one, while preventing the second one to ensure that competition is available to serve all market segments. Your assertion is that there is currently insufficient regulation to prevent #2. I'd argue that is probably true in all markets at some point in time since they change and regulation will always lag innovation, in addition to over or under responding when there are changes.

So I guess that begs the question, that w/r/t the "Cable TV industry", what's the change that's needed here to better regulate the market to be more competitive, given the market segment itself appears to be collapsing?

Your understanding of how the government acquires weapon systems seems incorrect and the parent is much closer to the reality of things.

Defense contractors that develop their own IP that is used as part of a procurement (read: weapon systems supply chain) are required to declare it prior to the contract start, and IP developed during the contract that is funded by the government assigns (typically) Government Purpose Rights to the government. Further details: https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/227.7103-5-government-rights.

Contracts, or portions of contracts that license existing IP for government use do not typically gain any rights whatsoever to the products beyond those normally granted by law or license. The case you reference has little, if anything, to do with the typical weapon system acquisition process.

WTF happened to the first paragraph? Ugh. Anyway, assumptions were 640 MHz carrier, 6MHz modulation, 60dB Rx antenna gain (.1 deg beam width). Free space loss is about 288 dB, Noise floor in receiver is about -106 dBm. With a 50kW (77 dBm) transmitter, you're 100dB below the noise floor at 1 light year.

Good lord, do the math already.

If we look at a DTV broadcast (@ 640MHz), and assume a "high gain" receiver (with 60dB antenna gain--a
This is why looking for any signal needs to be constrained to a very narrow bandwidth, i.e. to force the noise in the receiver low enough there's a chance in hell to detect something. At 1 Hz, the noise floor is -174 dBm, about 70dB better, meaning you are only off by 30dB (a factor of 1000), and it's at least conceivable something out there is blasting out a power level in the 50MW range.

Now, bear in mind those calculations (assuming I did them right, which frankly, is a "math in public" thing) were all at 1 LY...every time you double the range you have to find another 6 dB (factor of 4, i.e. R squared) to get back to the same spot.

To sum up: almost all the earth bound emissions from human activity are nearly undetectable at 1 LY, and it gets worse further out. What you're forced to quickly conclude is either someone out there is transmitting REALLY LOUD for some (known/unknown) reason, or we only have a chance in hell of detecting transmissions that are relatively "close" to Earth.

If it took STEM PhD's to capture the expertise about agency operation, I'd argue they were absolutely not using their STEM degrees in any meaningful way.

My limited experience with STEM folks I knew in government is they took the buyout option since it was almost a no-brainer, given the instability that comes with this kind of government shake up (from the "right") and what looked like the imminent government shutdown (from the "left").

I'd argue what Enshitification is in this context is demands that are implemented to maximize short term revenues. My take: it's a lack of proper life cycle planning for products and/or software.

The products and/or software life cycles either exceed or fail to meet the actual market demand(s). In the first case it is a kind of squeeze the juice from a platform past it's prime, aka free money. The second case is about recouping as much money as possible while possible to do so, i.e. before it completely loses all relevance.

Proper planning, unfortunately, means we're generally more likely to get lower quality products dominating a given space, so the "typical" product is likely to have a short lifetime, even if it's planned well...and although I don't think the term necessarily covers that specific aspect, it certainly aligns with the basic temperament of the usage.

I'm convinced this statement only holds true some of the time, in specific situations. Generally, the carrot and the stick are both required. Good behavior should be (initially) widely recognized and rewarded. Bad behaviors should be punished and corrected; early instances for any individual can be much less widely distributed (as a general rule), but it isn't clear that is the case in this instance (e.g. highly performing kernel contributors and maintainers).