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).

Agreed. It's a social contract that grants (what is supposed to be a limited) exclusivity to creators for a period of time to (financially) motivate them to produce "works". The problem with it now is that it has been extended beyond anything at all reasonable and is in desperate need of reform (likely something many others have brought up).

I think you're overstating the mess, but yeah, it is a mess, esp. for fast charger networks. The fast chargers (non-Tesla) near me mostly work correctly, although some refuse to deliver their rated peak power during the charging cycle, leading to increased charging times or a need to change chargers (which are less available than last year, by my observation).

As the standards seem to have converged, existing EV owners will need to purchase an adapter to support NACS (for fast charging, or not, I suppose). Hopefully this will improve things.

From my perspective I don't really need the network as I can charge locally on a L2 charger, and my EV is almost exclusively a "local drive" vehicle, and we use my wife's hybrid vehicle for any "non-local" travel, since I generally don't welcome the extra commute time that comes with multiple charges, esp. given their often inconvenient location(s).

There are no absolutes. :-)

It seems very unlikely to me that all non-competition "agreements" are harmful. I might agree that most non-competition agreements infringe on an individuals rights and freedoms in some manner, and that as a general rule they do more harm to an individual than good. That doesn't mean there isn't a general good for society (by this I really mean some group of individuals outside the one that is subject to the agreement) that at least some of these kinds of agreements might provide. It even seems feasible that certain individuals might gain additional benefit by participation in such an agreement, but they would likely be high performers in their field.

The judge in this case put implementing this rule on hold and it might be a good thing (not knowing the full details). Having said that, the logic used by the judge doesn't seem to pass the sniff test "...arbitrary and capricious."

This is the slippery slope. It's been proven again and again to not be a fallacy when it comes to "entertainment with advertisement". The correct amount of ads to accept in a service you pay for is NONE.

Since Amazon is bundling a video streaming service with a subscription based delivery service, it's a hard ask to say "I'll cancel Prime" when my primary use case is to have crap delivered to my house "quickly". I suspect I'll just uninstall the Prime Video apps from my streaming devices and leave it at that.

These companies will lose their best employees, who are secure in the knowledge...

The implication that the best employees want/desire to work remotely gets bandied about around here a lot, but I'm not sure I buy it. Certainly it seems reasonable to assume that of the workers that are working remotely a company is more likely to lose the good employees than the bad ones when forcing a RTO...but that doesn't necessarily correlate to losing a significant fraction of their "good" employees.

In my industry, I tend to see more poor employees working remotely and a much smaller subset of the high performers that can maintain that performance "from home". That's anecdotal and limited to a particular industry, but I'm unaware of any studies correlating the distribution of performers to work locations (office/home). I suppose that's no surprise since it's pretty hard to quantitatively capture "performance" across a diverse set of industries...

Respond or mod? Respond.

No. Just No. Neither show respect or build upon the canon in any significant way. I find both shows to be watchable in a way that reminds me on occasion of what Star Trek is, but the writing misses the mark in almost every case. Depictions of most of the characters completely miss the mark, and the narrative far to often is introspective to the point of being soap opera, which is certainly not Star Trek.

Lower Decks, as a separate comedy series "in the Star Trek universe" seems mostly workable, if it's treated as non-canonical satire. Given the recent cross over with Strange New Worlds, its clear the "creative team" doesn't take that view.

Without a license means what, exactly? If I pay for a subscription, is that not a license to consume the content? What's the difference between a person doing that and an algorithm?

There's no software development going on here. There's training a model...which is referred to as "learning" for a reason.

What en masse has to do with anything, I have no idea. If I read the NYT daily, front to back, over the course of 20 years, one can assume I've learned a great deal (or at least, absorbed a great amount of information).

The only difference I'm seeing between training a model and a person is the speed at which it happens. If a subscription is "sized" for "human consumption", maybe the subscription model needs to change for automated consumption?

There is SO much wrong with this statement.

First: "websites" don't have first amendment rights. End of line. No go. A person that owns/operates a website may have them, but that isn't the same thing.

Second: The right of free speech is an affirmative one, i.e. it isn't a right to deny the speech of others.

Third: It isn't at all clear how "social media" sites map to the "public forum". Potentially suits like this one may define some bounds on the concept, but it would generally be better if the government addressed this directly with legislation...much like has been done--just at the state level.

Yes, there does exist the issue of censorship and who can do it when and by what standard...which I think is where you were trying to go here. I'm of the opinion that until some consensus exists w/r/t the third item, the argument is relatively pointless. The interesting question is: Is there an implied consensus that everyone is working to? Maybe, but I don't think we're there yet.

Well I heard Mister Young speak about Joe; Well I heard ol' Neil put him down; Well I hope Neil Young will remember; Spotify don't need him around anyhow....

Apologies to LS.

I'll second this: DDG is generally good enough and i use it as my primary, but I find several times a month I need to run the same search on google to get what I'm after.

Generally, I think I've noticed it improving over the course of the year 2021, and and if you are trying to move away from the big tech companies that are blatant about viewing you as their product, I'd say it's a fine solution.

...and yet here you are all over this article's discussion thread arguing in a way that would indicate you don't believe what you just said there.

The SL-1 experimental reactor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1

Interesting reading.

There is no reason to berate people who make good-faith contributions. A simple "that's not good enough" is appropriate.

That said, the rest IS "so hard". If you look at what you wrote, I bet you'll even figure out why.

HINT: Ask yourself how many people are "contributing in good faith", then ask if the rest, which can easily be taken for a debate or discussion (which it isn't), is worth the time commitment.

Some well-asked questions are more valuable than any answer...if those hearing the question can engage in critical thinking.

I might agree with this version, but not yours.