This has all the hallmarks of a modern-day novel 'tragedy' along the lines of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarndyce_and_Jarndyce Spoiler: at the end of that case, the court costs have consumed all the income of the estate, and the 'winners' get nothing....

> "What kind of updates/changes/fixes are left to make?"

As we have seen on other probes (https://developers.slashdot.org/story/24/11/13/1138224/the-ultimate-in-debugging), the possibility of equipment / logic breaks on the remote equipment goes up with time. The solutions to these issues are often not straightforward, and the possibility of complete failure with a single mistake in any attempted fix is high.

Conclusion: the need increases for a local test article to run simulations of 'outside the box' solutions in a probes waning years.

This Terry Pratchet - Stephen Baxter series would make for an interesting alternative to a Stargate reboot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Your generalization is only true of a specific subset of e-bike designs, and wildly inaccurate about other types of e-bikes. Therefore I can only conclude your understanding is similarly inaccurate.

The GenX solution would be for legislators to direct the funds into making some safety demonstration videos: Something provocative/implicitly graphic like 'what happens to a melon in a helmet when when it's ebike crashes at 20+mph...'

Aren't they just admitting something's fishy about this announcement--as in "There's something rotten in the state of Deepseek..."

Not unless the whole crowd agrees to be pre-fitted with submission devices. From the summary: "A challenge in targeting the olfactory bulb is that it's buried behind the top of your nose, and your nose doesn't provide a flat surface for an emitter. Ultrasound also doesn't travel well through air. The solution the researchers came up with was to place the emitter on your forehead instead"

"What could possibly go wrong?"

I see all the 'not a chance' responses, but I'd argue that the current Chromebook ecosystem comes pretty close to this: the majority of Chromebook hardware is designed to run a centrally-managed OS platform that enables access to larger services--just like a typical thin client; and the data and applications it runs are already 'rented' from Google using ad revenue & Google app subscriptions.

If Google added remote-hosting services for apps that can't run locally (and resurrected Stadia under a new name cause that's what Google does best), I think it would fulfill this 'vision' in all the meaningful ways...

It seems certain that there are plenty of European teenagers who have 'undocumented income' (money from gifts, allowance, odd jobs, etc), but would qualify as 'unbanked', so I would say: Yes...

I would point out that once people start abandoning Windows on the client side, their motivation to use MS cloud and server products are severely diminished as well. So while Windows isn't the biggest money maker, it is arguably their strongest chain to keep people linked into their subscription services...

Help what, exactly? You would almost certainly have to choose between dramatic decrease in services or a dramatic increase in taxes to achieve the same revenue from 35% less population. Since you're on Slashdot, you might be able to afford the 50% higher tax rate required to maintain current services. But would you do that (and still call it a "serious help"), considering that it wouldn't actually improve services for you?

Many foraging and hunting animals understand the concept of 'territory', which extends to include the area of land, sea, or air which they might need to collect resources from. A wolf pack can have a territory extending to 2000 square miles--well beyond a "very localized self-defense of personally occupied land"

"Mathematicians have identified the first shape that cannot pass through itself."

Or

"In 1968, Christoph Scriba proved the tetrahedron and octahedron also possess this quality."

"Based on our experience..." means they aren't using performance tests or actually trying to reskill anyone. They are just citing 'experience' to proactively fire those who they want to fire--probably anyone born before 1990.