At least in the gaming world, it's a contest of which faction will win in the end. The creative types, the management types, the grunts (coders and QC), and the expectations of consumers that drive this feedback loop. There is no shortage of the creative types. They drive the story line, game play, and what you do in the game. Their problems are rooted in what could be better or more fun than the last release. The management types should be focused on scheduling tasks, making budgets work efficiently, and how their proposed or in work project can differentiate itself from the competition. The grunts have the difficult work of translating the ideas into working code within a time and money budget, and get QC to make sure the code runs on a wide array of hardware. The consumer expectations are the bar to which all three factions have to focus and decide what is and what is not essential at the beginning, not midstream. Management types understand how to keep a spreadsheet, but not how to write code and solve technical issues. Creative types know what is exciting and fun, but are not charged with making decisions that affect the scope and depth of the project. Coders are too often expected to be miracle workers when the pressure of unrealistic deadlines caused by the other camps makes compromises that erode consumer expectations. The changes made necessary by the evolving state of the art in hardware specifications makes a PC port of a console game even more challenging to keep QC in the ballpark while trying to make the best of a particular set of changing specifications. Many here have blamed the consolidation of the industry as a prime suspect in the failure of the AAA range of titles, and that has some valid points. The consolidation was driven by the fact that the money to pay all of these competing camps has to come from somewhere, and the pie has shrunk in recent years. The demands of each faction has relative worth in the money world, and that is compounded by what price is seen as worth paying in the gaming world. The success of the subscription model from the mobile sector is what drives the entire industry now. You cannot have a franchise without some way of ensuring that your earnings are more like a service rather than a farmer who has a one-time payout after release. This is why there is a sharper disconnect now among the factions that produce and release content as well. It's a tough world to make a living in, and that is partly why the indie gaming community is making more gains of late.

The findings of the root study, the FFS (a summary is at: https://www.nichd.nih.gov/news...) are not surprising, and is stuff most social workers deal with every day. What the goal of the AI model was is unclear. Even reality shows like Live PD pretty much can predict where the crime is, live and direct, every weekend. Too much can not be predicted in individual cases, mainly due to the human factors that no AI can accurately project. It's no true improvement on the human condition, and is a disservice to those actively engaged in trying to improve it.

Most of the Coca Cola that is bottled and sold in Mexico is in glass bottles (still). It is consumer preference that seems to be driving the marketplace there. To their credit, Coke has invested in PET recycling plants in both the USA and Mexico, but the reality in the soda wars is more about what people want rather than what the waste is. The other is demand for recycled PET is not that big, and that's the core problem of reducing waste worldwide.

More prudent investors have been doing that for a long time. The problems of the push for fast profits in India is that there is not much that can be squeezed out of an already low wage factory country, so all the low-hanging fruit is already stripped out. This is the 'bottoming out' of the race to the bottom, and now greed is tempered by the fact that money isn't all that easy if you cannot outsource things to a cheaper place. Welcome back to fundamentals, India!

Unisys is far from dead. They are still a worldwide company engaged in what is best described as government business. SAIC recently bought out their US Defense department business (more on that here: https://www.washingtonpost.com...), because Unisys can't do the cloud, and that SAIC needs 'specialized workers' (read: those who have security clearances) that Unisys has. Xerox and HP was more a M&A (merger and aquisition) move aimed at improving a top line to impress those invested in it.

UBI has fans from mostly exorbitant cost of living cities on the coasts. It does nothing to address the root problems of wage stagnation, taxation (a big burden on those who invested in real estate), market valuations, costs of municipal services, and fair and reasonable profit from their investment. These are local issues which vary a lot from area to area, even in large metro areas. A UBI does nothing to get to the core of why things cost what they do, only address a problem that is local to the area being looked at. It's the cart pulling the horse, because it's much easier to see that solution from that end of the issue rather than look at the whole problem as it relates to all the players and stakeholders involved. Those solutions are not something that can fit on a bumper sticker.

That's her older sister, Dolly Madison/s

So why is it radio still survives in an era of streaming? It's local, live, and requires no computer or smartphone, but is still available to those devices too. In times when people want to be more aware and informed, and know what that means to their own community, radio cannot be beat. It's why the business hasn't died despite the penetration of digital media. People like hearing more about what's news in their communities rather than where media centers are located, and interaction with the audience is what talk radio is about, not necessarily posing or promoting a political view. So is the idea of getting a laugh when you need one, as Howard Stern has made a living on that for decades, and his many imitators have carried it on. Yes, it's antiquated in technological terms, but has plenty of listeners still tuned in.

This is more kicking the can down the road than a truly workable framework, aimed at scoring political points in an election year. The stated goals all have potential, but are very expensive ways of doing things when looked at in the eyes of reality. Green energy isn't that much of a priority right now when we're dealing with a pandemic, and predictions about the planet's doom are being tempered by a more imminent threat posed by disease. Statistical models have weaknesses. Weather forecasters know this very well. Technology tends to advance when ideas become practical solutions to problems that make life and living easier. Electrical generation, still pretty much stuck on ideas invented and developed over a century ago, has a lot more potential than just finding a new source of kinetic energy to drive a dynamo. This is what politicians miss.

The short answer is no. Google owns and controls the software on Android, and will not allow you to meddle in their business model. Same goes for Apple. Don't like it? Perhaps your skills are useful to programming communities developing alternative OS ideas, or at least tools that can override much of what is destroying the user experience on mobile these days. Mozilla, Opera, and others developed out of a community of people that were determined to have an alternative to IE. Slacktavisim is no good in this space.

Perhaps in future missions, there could be an automated way to take a core sample of the surface, and return it to Earth for analysis. Blasting a hole did a fairly good job for what it was designed to do. Now that we have an idea of what kind of hardness we are dealing with on space rocks, a core would reveal much more information about what these things go through when exposed to the environment of deep space over extended periods of time. Lots more to learn in this area.

Elon does not have the capacity to manufacture the vehicles he already has on order. Established competition in that space has taken him seriously, which is why the noise over the eCascadia, etc. is rising. The space is changing as far as medium duty, fixed route vehicles is concerned if the maintenance costs are lower. Garbage haulers, who have already moved to CNG power, are looking very hard at electric conversions for some of their operations to reduce costs even more. The long haul bottleneck with range can be handled with current technology by giving a weight allowance to electric trucks, much in the same way many states give weight allowances to trucks who carry onboard AC generators and HVAC units (APU's) for those long haul applications. What is not clear at this time is the ratio of weight to operating time on the power source. The other is safety. Rollovers and collisions are common in the trucking world, and these factors also play a part when heavy rescue vehicles have to deal with electrical hazards as well. Costs of repairs from common accidents (example: wildlife) are also a consideration here. There will need to be a lot more research and development done before the e-truck becomes a workhorse.

I seem to remember the 'future proofing' when DX 6 came out, and it turned into a mess with 3 different implementations (6, the buggy 6a, and 6b, which was found on Blood 2). Seems like this is a 12A, rather than just going the full point release and doing DX13. Superstitious?

The problem here is the exact limitation you specified in your arguement. There are NO STANDARDS in the EV marketplace, as it's in it's infancy. Different manufacturers have different ideas about how to build these things, and this precludes any type or size of battery being developed like we use for dry cells. The other is lineups at re-charging/swapping stations in large cities, where these vehicles would have their biggest fan base and heaviest use. Someone who is short a few bucks and cannot afford a full swap, but needs a boost to get to work would not support this kind of model. You cannot base a business model on things that average consumers would not support in the economy as it exists today. It has to be flexible enough for those that are just scraping by (which it seems most young people are stuck these days), as well as better off people. Investors also need a bigger base of users to sink that kind of money into a venture that has, at best, limited appeal at this time. Remember that investors are focused on the quick buck (which is why their losses recovered so quickly in the virus scare), so they are not eager to gamble longer term and hope for an adoption scheme later on. It needs better long range planning, but that won't happen until standards are a bit clearer. Look how long it took for computers to take off until IBM standardized what a PC should be and do. That's when things got going in the tech world.

it's the next one. That has the whole idea of outsourcing to China getting business types very nervous.