Republicans equate being pro-market with being pro-big-business-agenda. The assumption is that anything that is good for big business is good for the market and therefore good for consumers.

So in the Republican framing, anti-trust, since is interferes with what big business wants to do, is *necessarily* anti-market and bad for consumers, which if you accept their axioms would have to be true, even though what big business wants to do is use its economic scale and political clout to consolidate, evade competition, and lock in consumers.

That isn't economics. It's religion. And when religious dogmas are challenge, you call the people challenging them the devil -- or in current political lingo, "terrorists". A "terrorist" in that sense doesn't have to commit any actual act of terrorism. He just has to be a heathen.

$40 in 1995 is equivalent to over $85 today after adjusting for inflation.

You learn a lot of other new things about life and what you really believe in by meeting new people with different ideas or participating in activities you never had an opportunity to previously. There's more to university than you what you get in the lecture hall or library (or the modern equivalent). Probably more so if you don't do it from your parent's basement!

no problem.

I'm actually responding to the AC above you. He is arguing that the attack wouldn't make any sense for either country to make, based on *national* interest. I'm pointing out that's not the only framework in which *regimes* make decisions.

Yes, I totally agree, you have to pick a reasonable length of time for depreciation. Three years is clearly too short for a lot of devices now, although I wouldn't suggest 18 years is appropriate either!

Indeed. I learnt recently that one of our GitLab VM hosts for Linux build runners is is hardware from 2012. The dev team discovered this when a vendor sent us an updated library that dropped SSE4.2 support and required AVX2, causing our smoke tests to fail and thus fail the builds. Why throw away hardware that is still working and performant?

The baseline profile of MPEG-5 Essential Video Coding (EVC) (ISO/IEC 23094-1) is supposed to be the modern MPEG codec that only uses tools made public 20 years ago or have been declared royalty free. It hasn't really gathered traction though either because there's not enough incentive for the stakeholders or because nobody wants to invest in adding another codec to their pipeline that doesn't improve enough beyond HEVC.

Just put it in context: Today Russia struck the Pechenihy Reservoir dam in Kharkiv.
Russia launched the war because they thought it would be a quick and easy win, a step towards reestablishing a Russian empire and sphere of influence, because Putin thinks in 19th century terms. Russia is continuing the war, not because it's good for Russia. I'd argue that winning and then having to rebuild and pacify Ukraine would be a catastrophe. Russia is continuing the war because *losing* the war would be catastrophic for the *regime*. It's not that they want to win a smoldering ruin, it's that winning a smoldering ruin is more favorable to them and losing an intact country.

Not regardless of any size. An old XDCAM will produce MPEG-2 streams that look better than anything streaming from Amazon Video.

The recent stories of laptops having their decoders removed because of patent frees are infuriating.

Maybe you're referring to this story:
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Farstechnica.com%2Fgadget...

It says:
Per a breakdown from patent pool administration VIA Licensing Alliance, royalty rates for HEVC for over 100,001 units are increasing from $0.20 each to $0.24 each in the United States ... "This is pretty ridiculous, given these systems are $800+ a machine, are part of a 'Pro' line (jabs at branding names are warranted â" HEVC is used professionally) ..."

It's such a small percentage of the price yet some bean counter has decided to make user experience shit. Moral of the story for me is to not buy the cheapest shit on the market.

Indeed. The Germans started strategic bombing of civilian areas about 88 years ago, and in fact, the German president was just in Guernica paying his respects to the victims of that attack: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fwo....

We haven't stopped strategic bombing of civilian areas just because they don't work, it's also because it amounts to war crimes. Britain bombed Germany like that as a response to Germany doing it to Britain and that being the only response Britain could muster at the time, but RAF Bomber Command has always been down played because of the perception that it was wrong; they didn't even get a memorial until 2012.

Russia is behaving like it's still the 1940s. 27 Russian soldiers dead for every square kilometre of Ukraine they've taken. They don't value their own lives, and so they certainly don't value those from other countries.

That wasn't *all* I said, but it is apparently as far as you read. But let's stay there for now. You apparently disagree with this, whnich means that you think that LLMs are the only kind of AI that there is, and that language models can be trained to do things like design rocket engines.

How long have Airbus known about it? When were the airlines notified versus this report in the media?

That's what I just said.