To be completely honest, I do not use my computers like I use my phone. My phone is what I carry everywhere, and what I use on a daily basis to communicate with the world around me - and I would rather it be more secure than less. When I ran around with Android phones, I would end up rooting the phone because it was the only way to guarantee I could update it and lock it down. If I didn't, I was completely beholden to the manufacturer and carrier as to when it would be updated and which version it was considered EOL. It was too much work, to be honest. And the peace of mind wasn't there. Switched to iPhone and found synergy with my other devices. Bought an Apple Watch and it integrated seamlessly. Had the same iPhone since 2018 and haven't looked back. Sure, it is way out of warranty and probably will be EOL for iOS updates eventually, but I look at the Android phones my friends are walking around with and they are all a year old at most - and they are trading in and upgrading every year because that's the cycle they are in. And I haven't had to jailbreak my phone. I'm reasonably comfortable using my banking app on iOS on my phone. And using all the 2FA features for my other secure logins. Not sure what I will do if Apple is forced to open up the walled garden. Pretty sure there are plenty of ambitious folks out there ready to exploit the hell out of iOS users stupid enough to side-load their shit, or download it from an unscrupulous app store. Won't be me.

They aimed their focus on BHP and made it bad to use it. But there are whole classes of plasticizers and polyesters that aren't just endocrine-disruptive, but full-on replacements for sex hormones like estrogen and androgen. Not to mention the wide slew of naturally-derived plant hormones found in vegetable oils that are concentrated by processing and never found at such levels in nature. This is the real danger of seed-based oils.

We know that hormones have a huge impact on gene expression, and that most forms of cancer are caused by inactive gene sequences that are not in expression that become active due to hormone changes. This could be especially significant when we start screwing around with nature by artificially changing the environment, such as hormonal birth control and introduction of artificial estrogens (the controversy over BHP and other polyesters, for instance). There is great hesitation in funding this research because of the huge liability it will create for the plastics industry and for big pharma, but it will be highly important for the continued health of everyone. For a better idea of how impactful the conclusion of research can be, take a look at the widespread use of asbestos in almost every facet of fireproofing and the current amount of mesothelioma litigation that continues to be ongoing. Or the amount of money that the tobacco industry continues to pay out because they did the research and ignored the conclusions.

The ideas behind Hypercard heavily influenced the implementation of HTML, Hypertext and Javascript that powers the current form of the web we enjoy today. If Bill Atkinson had been more forward-thinking than he was at the time (making it network-aware from the start), it most likely would have been the web. Instead, it needed Tim Berners-Lee to take it that last mile.

I think the push should be that whenever they open the hood on any part of the kernel, the responsible parties should determine if they need to rewrite the portion in Rust or continue to solve the problem in C. Most of the kernel code in C is absolutely safe and solid and does not need to be rewritten. New pieces should be written in Rust. Compromised portions of the kernel absolutely should be rewritten in Rust. I think Microsoft has already taken this approach on the Windows kernel and drivers.

You can't kill yourself! It's against the law! The penalty is death!

Instead of dumping and rewriting their C# logic as Rust, why not implement the .NET IL interpreters using Rust? Granted, it may not be any faster than it is now, it will be more future-proof and could allow them to expose Rust as a runtime language within .NET, that way any "MS"-iness with Rust is limited to this environment (compile directives and such). With that in mind, .NET languages could then run alongside Rust in the same implementation, and any desire to rewrite to Rust could be done in due course without sacrificing performance.

The biggest problem is that the venture into space was led by government, which is spastically led by politicians who have to cater to the whims of the uneducated populace and the ambitions of terrestrially-bound corporations led by executives who can't see past the next quarter. The Moon Shot was the big wad spent by NASA and they haven't seen budgets anywhere near that scope again. And the only reason that they got such a big spend was because we were in a penis measuring contest with the Soviet Union with regards to space programs and politicians who could be whipped up with the Red Scare In Space.

We lack a firm leadership who has a vision of where the human race needs to be. Mr. Musk appears to be the next best thing to a leader with a vision. Without the Red Scare, your everyday run-of-the-mill Joe Blow in congress could care less about the space program if it won't get him re-elected.

That's why I led with an economic incentive to build orbital industry. It isn't just space tourism. It's about convenience for the jet-setting continent hoppers who don't want to spend days getting to the other side of the globe, or even from the East Coast to the West Coast in under an hour, totally feasible using a Starship orbit transfer with the orbital platform as the transfer point so everyone goes where they want to go. Layover in orbit waiting for your drop? Why not enjoy a meal with an out-of-the-world view? Do it enough times and even lowly plebeians may be able to afford the price with the economy of scale.

The orbital platform is a stepping stone. We build the orbital platform because it needs to be there. Launch facilities on every continent make it possible to put Starships into orbit on a regular basis, alongside Dragon capsules. Passengers exit the Starship, take a few minutes to look around, and then board another Starship that is exiting orbit, and they land on another continent in a mere handful of hours rather than the days it would have taken to travel by commercial airliner.

More passengers requires more space and amenities to support their presence in orbit, thus increasing the size of the station and the head count of workers. A larger work force means more opportunity for increased orbital industry.

First, we start cleaning up near-orbit space and recycling the materials we've been throwing into orbit for the last 60+ years. It's cheaper to recycle than it is to lift it from the deep gravity well that is Earth, especially if we have the infrastructure in orbit to make it possible.

Next, we start capitalizing on near Earth bodies (i.e., the Moon, asteroids, comets, etc.). We build and populate lunar bases and move nearby asteroids into orbit for raw materials. We expand orbital habitats and make them as livable as possible, using spin rotation to create artificial gravity. This steps us to the rest of the solar system. In orbit, we can manufacture spacecraft that never have to endure the rigors of orbital insertion, but are imminently suited for interplanetary travel.

This bootstraps us to Mars, Saturn and Jupiter, where we can exploit even more resources on rocky moons and large asteroids, building on our experience manufacturing in near Earth orbit. Sunlight will be weaker, so we will require more efficient solar energy capture - but we are an adaptive and innovative species as long as we don't kill each other and ourselves before we can innovate and adapt. Considering the vast amount of space in the solar system, there is a lot of room for expansion - and a lot of resources to fuel it. But we will take the next leap to extra-solar exploration and, eventually, colonization.

We just need to get off our collective asses and do it. Thank you Elon for being among the first to get up.

Use high orbit stations as a transit destination from launch facilities on each continent. Intercontinental travelers who spent several thousand dollars each way to take several days will find that travel time reduced to a few hours - with an opportunity to become space tourists to boot

Increasing population on high orbit stations spur investment in industries that benefit from microgravity manufacturing and easy intercontinental distribution (i.e., pharmaceuticals, etc.)

Near Earth bodies (asteroids, etc.) can be mined for resources that don't have to come up/down the gravity well

The moon, with its much shallower gravity well, is also a viable platform, but skipping high orbital habitation will make it harder to support and sustain any significant population. This should go hand-in-hand with orbital development

Eventually, a population in orbit and on the moon will be a stepping stone to the rest of the solar system, and investment in artificial habitats will only make it easier for these colonies to be self-sufficient as long as they have access to raw resources

Artificial habitats can occupy the same solar orbit as the Earth, and using centrifugal spin will make it possible for them to provide near-Earth gravity and sunlight for any occupants. In fact, colonies in orbits further than Earth would require less radiation shielding and might be more viable

When technology finally catches up, we can then look to extra-solar exploration and habitation

Before anyone starts labeling me as anti-American and Communist, know that I am very red-blooded American and very much a proponent of both Capitalism and democracy. I know it goes against everyone's nationalistic grain - but why don't we see if we can partner with China - and others - to return to the moon? Can't guarantee that China would be on board with this idea, and certainly won't try and overlook the severe gap between the two nations right now - but every bit of money spent in competition would go much further in cooperation. And who know? It might engender communal ties as opposed to heightening levels of discord.

What quantifies a "worthless college degree"? Getting a law degree would be considered to be worthless if the field is already flush with law degree recipients. Getting a teaching degree is pretty much "worthless" because teachers get paid bupkis. Getting a degree in gender studies, I guess, would be worthless because practical application outside of academia is nil. But then, a lot of the social sciences also falls under that category. As well as archaeology and anthropology/ Most of the pure sciences, such as math or biology, have little practical application outside of academia unless the person finds an entity wealthy enough to fund their research. And there is the possibility that a pure science degree holder may find employment in a related field.

What it drills down to is direction once a person graduates as to whether that degree holds value or not. And while a person is in pursuit of that academic milestone, the institution needs to look at the investment they've made as to whether it will be remunerated after the person has matriculated. My issue is the institution hold no responsibility as to whether the person in employable after they've separated because they have no part in the debt. We should make these institutions accountable to their graduate's debts in some fashion so they will guide the student to habitable careers with their knowledge so they can pay back their loans, even if it requires that they keep the guidance available after matriculation.

The reason Apple has taken the tack that they have is that they are forced to play the long game on this patent lawsuit - and they will make it as expensive as possible for the patent owner when it does get a day in court because the damages will be the potential Apple Watch sales over the period of the infringement. It is intended to make the patent holder demand an expedited judicial process to minimize any damage findings should the judicial process go against them. It will be interesting to see which way the court decides because of the vagueness in the patent language as well as the fact that software-only patents tend to have issues with prior art/examples, and the technology to check O2 blood levels has been available since the 70s, meaning those patents expired decades ago.

The only "class" that gets rich in class action lawsuits are bloodsuckers...err...lawyers. I know the whole thing about well-meaning intentions, but in the end, unless there was egregious harm (to include bodily harm and even death) the individual payout once the lawyers take their cut is pitiful. If lawyers were truly altruistic about the cases they support, they would ask for operating expenses + 10%. Not 33% of the final settlement. And we've all heard about the creative billing practices used by some lawyers. I've been on the receiving end of at least a couple myself. I only trust a lawyer as long as I can watch them working. And the few honest ones I've had to work with were mostly commerce and patent attorneys - because they traditionally work at a flat rate. And sticking it to the company to make them bleed...don't kid yourself. Unless the amount is enough to bring shareholders to tears, the company is just going to write it off as the cost of doing business and not change one iota of their practice (other than "let's not get caught next time"). And yes, I am a bit cynical. I've watched too many of these dramas unfold. Until they start holding corporate leadership and board members personally accountable for their actions, it's all a sham anyway.

I wonder how much of that loss was only on the books so they could take the write-off? I've learned to take a lot of these numbers with a grain of salt since watching the way business is able to legally cook the books, especially when it comes to calculating loss and depreciation.