The sticky parts here:
Delta is demanding from its contractor reparations for damages that it's refusing its customers. When they reject claims for which they have responsibility, how can they go after their contractors on the same basis?
Delta is not the only airline to use CrowdStrike, and they all had outages on July 19. Delta, however, is the only one that couldn't recover until July 24.

Crowdstrike's test and deployment processes to me look like gross negligence: their business is having companies entrust them with access to the Kernal and deploying timely and safe updates. Everyone else uses a robust testing process including staggered deployment.
But Delta, in going about a lawsuit, will be required to reveal their own IT processes and shortcomings that led to a five-day collapse.

Or they settle for zero dollars.

I wouldn't even be surprised if the insurers refused to pay out on this one. It's like a fire prevention company deploying a smoke detector that, at the same time around the world, does an auto-test that, due to a design flaw, disables the detector and starts a fire. No amount of "use this device at own risk. We will not cover fire damage costs incurred by using this product" is gonna fly. Liability insurance might cover something, but not a failure to follow basic software security practices. And, even then, who is going to insure them tomorrow? Who is going to go to the boss and say: "well, these guys can't follow the most fundamental rule in keeping their clients' machines secure, let's hire them as our security solution!"? Nothing short of Russian sabotage is going to save them. Good news for competitors: fresh contracts are on the way. Also, you can probably hire some engineers. Just keep an eye on them.

There are literally hundreds of emulator boxes.

I'm not buying an overpriced low quality one from the Trump shitposter. Palmer Luckey can fuck himself.

If it decouples the flash from social media, how are people going to find out about it? Once someone starts using it, that person disappears from the major marketing channel of our time. The problem with truly useful tools is that they don't propagate themselves or move as many copies as flashy, trendy crap that breaks or goes obsolete in two years.

So then I see a price of $800 for specs that are a little vague, but which most people are going to associate with a device that costs about $200; of course, those devices are the flashy ones, and they can be churned out for a profit much cheaper, given the economies of scale.

And I'd want to see how this display works before plunking down. So we're doomed as a race.

He has to live with Outlook, which, like other mailing software, scans messages before they are sent for keywords such as "CV", "Resume", "Attachment", and, if it gets a hit, and there's no attachment, reminds the user "would you like to add an attachment?"
Unlike other mailing software, that dictionary includes "Bill". Every email he types his name into generates a "would you like to add an attachment", until he either disables the feature or sets up a signature.
Unlike other mailing software, using / will try to include a file, picking something that resembles the words typed, and by default attaching the file. On the Outlook 365 web client, not even Bill Gates can disable this feature. So, if Mr. Gates ends an email with the signature /Bill on then the helpful Web Client will find a sensitive piece of financial information and automatically attach it to the message.
Unlike other mailing software, Outlook gets bundled into office IT packages for companies around the world, supposedly to offer a comprehensive solution for your basic business infrastructure. Businesses end up including proprietary features and locking their users into Outlook. Sure, you can tell people to set up signature blocks, but you're as likely to get 100% compliance on that as with telling people they shouldn't use tab to indent their paragraphs.

Yeah, they don't see it as useful, but many people do, and it's part of national heritage. Maybe the government should take care of it? After all 4.5 million quid a year is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of digitization and the recurring cost of ensuring the integrity of the data. Oh, this is the government?

"....China turns to nuclear power to try to meet carbon emissions goals....."

No, this is not why. They are not trying to meet any carbon emission goals. They have no goals, other than growing the economy and making it sanction proof.

Most American military believes that China's air quality has gotten so bad that the Chinese government is afraid of creating the first air quality government overthrow.

They are trying to control carbon emissions to keep from being defenestrated.

 

Where does this crazy idea come from, that the Chinese are fully sold on the climate emergency

You can meet carbon goals for reasons other than the environment.

 

Where do people get this wishful thinking about China from?

Do you actually get a towel to wring while you plead, for authenticity?

There's no such thing as "americanesium."

"But but I just took the"

nobody cares. Your comment doesn't make sense, and theirs does.

Duh. This is a variant of a typical "Nigerian prince" scam.

They actually made the ship. It's a running nuclear reactor that delivers power in the real world. No Nigerian Prince scam has ever built a working nuclear reactor, little buddy.

 

The completely unreasonable proposition is a feature to filter out everyone, but the most moronic investors.

Uh. The Chinese government is doing this, and isn't taking investors. Be less paranoid.

What's unreasonable about putting a nuclear reactor on a ship? America's been doing this since 1952. It's 2023.

Mostly I'm on board with your excellent comment. A few things though.

 

However, on average, despite being transformed into uranium, it's radioactive products are on average shorter lived

It's not clear why you believe this. This is not correct. Uranium decays the same way regardless of how it was created.

 

But TLDR: it's about the same as traditional reactors.

The LFTR advantage isn't a real thing. It's a youtube myth.

There's no real problems with class 3 PWR in an engineering sense. It's safe, it's reliable, it's well understood. America has had more than half of the world's meltdowns - over 100 - and a reactor has never killed a person here. There's a good argument that nuclear power is not just the safest power technology, but indeed the safest technology of any kind, ever invented.

LFTR claims four advantages:

1. Safer. Horseshit. We've never run one and we have no idea what its safety characteristics are. Back in the 1950s we thought PWR couldn't melt down, too. Lars and Ed are just unimaginative; it's not very difficult to think of serious problems beginning with the infiltration tank cracking. Go ask Cavan; he can go on for ages about unconsidered risks.
2. Cheaper. Again, horseshit. We had built 20 nuclear plants for the price we've spent researching this one. Nuclear plants have been made by individual teenagers. You might as well spend ten billion dollars inventing a cheaper $5 watch. You will never build enough of them to pay the delta off.
3. Small modular scale. ***Horseshit***. Nothing in engineering stops anyone from building PWRs at that scale. The reason we don't do it is economic: the structure of the legal overhead from auditing and validating a plant makes them not cost effective. That's why France and South Korea regularly build smaller plants than anyone else - they have advanced auditing schemes that do not require anywhere near as much pointless overhead.
4. Factory buildable. Well, this would be a nice advantage, except y'know, I've been hearing Lars talk about converting a shipyard for more than 20 years, and work hasn't begun, yet. A factory to build regular PWR could be built much faster than that, including replacing Japan Steelworks, if anyone actually wanted to.

They solved a bunch of problems that aren't the problems the industry faces; they built a device that needs a legal and regulatory regieme that doesn't exist; and now they can't figure out why they can't get customers.

And you think those deep brains are going to solve this?

 

Probably a bit less, because you can basically burn the thorium completely, where with Uranium you still have like 90% of the fuel remaining when you pull it out as waste.

You seem to be forgetting about breeder reactors.

Neither. You can handle yellowcake with your bare hands safely. They wear gloves to protect the fuel, not the person.

You know your relatives are eating off of uranium plates, right? It's called "fiestaware," and they're eating trace amounts with every forkfull of ceramic dust

It's unfortunate that slashdot has fallen so far that any time someone with no experience in a field doubts something, they say something sanctimonious like "can't tell if trolling or wrong"

that sort of behavior will severely limit you in the long run, tailor

You conveniently overlooked the 20 years of red-tape profiteering and corruption

That's probably because those things aren't real. I also ignored the vampire squad .

It's practically a patented American budget-destroying process

I don't suppose you have a single specific real world example of this moaning you're doing that you're able to give evidence of?

there is no such thing as a gen 4 reactor

the us spun up a regular reactor a couple years ago, and the thing i'm responding to is talking about that .

There are zero good things to say about what the USA did two years ago.

yeah you sound like you know anything at all about this

oh good, someone with a dungeons and dragons name is remembering when the us used to be able to do something it did two years ago

uranium doesn't actually need to be stored safely for more than a couple of weeks; we just do that to mollify the idiots.

thorium's decay chain is so tame that you can drink it.