The important thing about the new equipment is that it has improved creature comforts and that it's longer, thus creating more capacity. One of the more significant problems with the first generation Acela trainsets is that they're only six cars long. Journey time is more a function of the track than the equipment, and the Avelia Liberty acquisition doesn't address that (nor was it meant to). The Shore Line between Providence and Stamford is still full of curves. The Metro-North Railroad still handles dispatching between New York and New Haven. Furthermore, even if the Avelias can make better times for various reasons, Amtrak's not going to change the timetables while the first-generation trainsets are still running. Also, I guess none of us read the article since it likes to a CNBC article about AI adoption and job loss. Guess I've been trolled.

Central Park is "publicly available," but that doesn't mean you have the right to cut down the trees in it and sell them for lumber. The AI companies are selling lumber and when you ask them where they got it, they shrug and say "publicly available sources."

It's confusing because of non-unique names, but I haven't been able to find a CV, bio, or publication list... nothing to confirm that he is at NASA, was at NASA, or that he's the top electrostatics expert at NASA.

If the Future "Fund" didn't have a endowment--an endowment in the form of cash "fiat" money--or at least a portfolio of conservative assets denominated in "fiat" money--then it was always a shaky reed. If they were gambling on their research funding coming from promise of future cash flow, from investment activity based on FTT play money, then they need to be big boys and accept their gambling losses for what they are.

The real account (non-troll) is account number 965497, named "PopeRatzo". The troll account is account number 9779246, named "PopeRatzo (965497)". That first number you see is actually part of the name.

Most laws, regulations, and restrictions purporting to prohibit rooftop antennas are illegal under 47 CFR 1.4000, which, as a federal regulation, preempts most state and local laws (and even prohibits HOAs from imposing restrictions). Unless you happen to be in a Historic Place (as defined in federal law) or there are safety regulations prohibiting anything of similar size and weight (or certain other special circumstances), you cannot be prevented from putting up an antenna on property that is for your exclusive use (anything you own, any building you rent as a whole, exclusive balconies in apartments, etc.).

There is no "ASCII" division symbol. The symbol ÷ is in ISO/IEC 8859-1 (0xF7) and Unicode (U+00F7), but not ASCII, which only has 128 characters total.

A conf call! Fascinating.

.com has a price cap fixed by ICANN. Verisign always asks for it to be lifted but ICANN hasn't allowed it for the original generics -- precisely because of the size of their established base and different economics and expectations. Lifting the cap on .org with deceptive arguments (first removing caps for new gTLDs, saying that would not apply to old ones, then lifting it on .info and .biz -- and throwing on .org to that discussion at the last minute!) Is the first step towards lifting the cap on all names, including .com. expect that the next time the Verisign contract is up, in 4y I believe.

See here for an explanation: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurity.googleblog.co...

TL;DR is the entire TLD is on the HSTS preload list.

...not that there's any bright-line definition. But 1401's were considered "small computers" and the main use I knew for them was as satellite computers--auxiliary equipment used together with real "mainframes." For example, an IBM 7090 might perform input and output only to magnetic tape. The tapes were then mounted on the tape drive of a 1401, which read the tape and printed the contents on a line printer.

I read a fascinating book, "Seeking the Cure: A History of Medicine in America," by Ira Rutkow, that answered some questions I'd always had about appendectomies.

If someone asked you to fill in the blank quickly in the sentence "The surgeon performed an _________" you would probably say "appendectomy." Yet it isn't such a terribly common operation today. Why is it the ur-operation, the one always used for purposes of hypothetical illustration? Why appendectomies?

According to Rutkow, It was a confluence of events. I hadn't realized that abdominal surgery had once been a medical taboo, with a nearly 100% mortality rate. Antisepsis ("Listerism") and anesthesia made it safe. It had once been extremely difficult to diagnose. I hadn't really thought of centrifuges, microscopes and blood counts as being a breakthrough in modern technology, but of course they were, part of the medical technology revolution that emerged from World War I. And they made it possible to diagnose appendicitis reliably. And there was one influential surgeon who promoted the idea that it was a surgeon's disease, that appendicitis "belonged to" the surgeon. Hospitals and surgeons found appendectomies to be lucrative, and they became almost a fad; Rutkow cites a hospital in which 1/5th of all operations performed were appendectomies.

In 2010, Nancy Gohring reported in Infoworld, Ballmer bets Microsoft's future on the cloud.. "'Seventy percent of the 40,000 people who work on software at Microsoft are in some way working in the cloud,' CEO Steve Ballmer said Thursday at the University of Washington. 'A year from now, that will be 90 percent,' he said.... 'Our inspiration, our vision ... builds from this cloud base,' he said. 'This is the bet, if you will, for our company.'"

I think there was similar rhetoric years earlier than that.

The Microsoft "Kin" phones lacked features normally implemented locally on phones, and Microsoft said that was going to be fine because modern-day young phone users were comfortable with relying on the cloud....

Congress already gave him the authority: 50 U.S. Code  1701 and 50 U.S. Code  1702

The problem with the monorail is that it was designed as spectacle, not as transit, yet even as spectacle it fails because it's so out of the way that most people never even stumble across it, and if you do take it, all you see are the backs of hotels. It's even priced as spectacle. $2.75 gets you anywhere in New York City via the subway and bus, but it costs $5 to take the monorail just to go 4 miles along the backs of casinos in Las Vegas.

The monorail should have been built in the middle of the Strip. The Strip is a dystopian nightmare highway bifurcating one of the most walked streets in the United States. It's so dangerous that in many places there aren't even any at-grade pedestrian crossings; you have to go up stairs/escalators set back from the strip, go across a bridge, and then back down, often being forced to detour through one or two casinos in the process. It's the ultimate triumph of automobiles over people for no goddamn reason at all.

The mass transit should have been run right down the middle of the Strip. Instead it was forced to the margins where it remains unused, when it was really the car traffic that should have been forced to the margins. Las Vegas should do a NYC-style "Summer Streets" a few times per year and entirely close down the Strip to car traffic for half a day and let pedestrians use it as they'd like, like Mardi Gras. Then people would realize what they've been missing.