Shouldn't the evidence be presented in trial and evaluated by a judge and jury? Why announce their findings to the public before it's been validated?

Very little money has gone into fusion relative to the benefit it would bring. ITER, the largest project, by far, was initially allocated $10 billion over more than a decade. With inflation budget has gone up, but no where near the $2 trillion spent on the F35 program that's mostly used to kill brown children.

Pubjeezy shilling for Jeff Beezy

Just imagine if this much money and effort had gone into nuclear fusion, securing clean energy for the rest of humanity's future.

I know concrete production is a significant contributor, but concrete production could be less harmful if renewable energy were used to slake limestone. In addition, we have alternatives for energy, but so far there isn't a scalable industrialized alternative to concrete. Fossil fuels are the main driver of climate change, and we have completely viable and affordable alternatives, that's why there's so much focus on reducing their usage.

It could also be used to send scammy marketing text messages as a service. Why would China fuck around, at a state level, with something like this? This is FUD and the FBI fluffing itself in public. I want to know what actual law was broken, because there are "potential" threats all over the place that are legal(for example, everyone who owns a car or a kitchen knife).

Your line of thinking is so smart. I had no idea women wore "make up," that's so deceptive! Also, people should stop wearing clothes or saying hello and asking how your day is when they don't really care. Fun fact, Nazis also thought women shouldn't wear makeup: "The Aryan ideal was a pure, un-scrubbed face. Visitors to Hitler's country retreat, lady visitors were actually given a little list of things they must not do: avoid excessive cosmetics, avoid red lipstick, and on no account ever are they to color their nails."

If she'd sold for over a billion, then the bank would deeply enough be invested in the lie to not reveal it with a lawsuit.

25 years as a professional software developer, vim user since 1994; I use an M1 MacBook from 2020 and I have zero temptation to upgrade it. I'm sure at some point Apple will enshittify the MacBook, but whatever you buy today will last at least 6 years.

This is a perfect setup for abuse. Creepy managers will follow women and children home with these drones. This needs to come with the legal hurdle of, at minimum, irrefutable proof that the person shoplifted with a steep fine and possibly prosecution for abuse. The solution: Just don't shop at stores that use drones to stalk their customers.

This seems like a problem all these school districts could come together and solve. Or just partner with a cloud provider. I'm embarrassed for them that this article wasn't titled, "thousands of schools districts ditch VMware for XYZ."

I speculate it was using channel bonding to allow cheap, encrypted broadband access for customers that didn't want to be tracked. The secret service just viewed it as a threat because they couldn't snoop into the traffic metadata. That's our reality now.

The real reason: "facilitating anonymous, encrypted communication between potential threat actors and criminal enterprises."

Which implies they view encryption and anonymity as an implicit threat.
Also, TFA: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.secretservice.gov%2F...

It's small enough a nation or some billionaires could bring it close to earth and mine it.

I think the subject of your post explains it clearly: You are not a lawyer.

This is a law firm that wants to use this material to show that they have the legal muscle and expertise to do so. It's fantastic advertising if they can borrow Disney's power and reputation to make themselves a reputable law firm that took a swing at a known corporate bully and emerged unscathed.