It's also not Lorde, it's a stunt pelvis. Hell of a thing to put on your passport, Occupation "Lorde's pelvis".

No mod points but yes, you're correct. There's nothing to say you can't do whatever you want in vendor-defined messages, that's what they're there for. This sort of stuff has a long, long history, going back to smart cards with similar messaging and PDUs, everything, and I mean everything, interesting was done in the vendor-defined messages, with only the bare minimum to appear compliant done in the standardised messages.

Note that qualifier, not "ever designed and manufactured", but a much much narrower "designed and manufactured in the US". Ouch.

I think all Intel has to do is offer the use of their fabs to Huawei and they'd never have to worry about cashflow again.

But not in the US, because it wasn't invented there.

Actually Microsoft's historical strengths have always been hardware: MS Mouse, MS Keyboard, Surface, Xbox, etc. It's only when they make ill-advised forays into software that things reliably turn to crap.

Wanna bet it's DOGE? $30B handed to Oracle's trolls sounds like just the thing the Department of Government Excess would do.

Did I? What lead you to this conclusion?

Make viable cheaper alternatives readily available to the market.

If billionaires commit crimes they should be prosecuted. If they simply do things you don't like or agree with .... well then.... you are welcomed to cry about it.

The real issue here is not about leadership or falling short of being an upstanding citizen. It is really the fact oil companies exist at all. This is clearly the intent of the statement " If oil companies have to start paying a ton of money then the price of oil goes up. This cascades into the general population (businesses included) seeking out and transitioning to non-fossil fuel solutions."

They want to pursuit policy through legal bullshit because they know their cause doesn't have the popular support to go through a normal policymaking process. They think the ends justify the means.

The reason this is an absurd overgeneralization is a huge number of products kill people. Knives, ladders, cars, ovens, electrical sockets, baseball bats, wood chippers, hammers, log splitters, screwdrivers, surge suppressors, power supplies, toasters, lighters, chainsaws.etc. Such products are ubiquitous. Without articulating a useful limiting principal you are not communicating anything useful.

"As far as I can see, people are dying as a result of their product. Seems quite similar to me." obviously conveys no such limiting principal.

What I intended by saying look in the mirror is the accountability is ours. We should all face the climate death lawsuit. If you burn less hydrocarbons or cause less hydrocarbons to be burnt then it stands to reason the amount you would be compelled to pay for your transgressions would be lower than someone who is less careful.

The word consensus means different things to different people in different contexts. What I intended was to convey political support for policymaking. A consensus view where a majority of policy makers are able to agree on a course of action. I did not intend for consensus to reflect unanimous agreement.

Not only do I not support it I think everyone else ought to oppose it on procedural grounds. Laws should be determined by the states policy process not short circuited by supporting bullshit lawsuits.

To the extent this is even legal I don't see it as acceptable and don't support it. I also disagree with the premise enrichment of politicians and PR firms has lead to ignoring costs of burning hydrocarbons. This simply isn't the case.

The issue is not about policies themselves but the policy process itself and who gets to decide what the policy ought to be.

If you play legal games rather than building consensus and working policy process then you deny citizens the right to weigh risks and benefits and make their own determinations known to their representatives.

If you want to be cynical and just a priori assume any policy process would be dominated by special interests and have nothing to do with the interests of the people I guess you can do that. Personally I think that kind of assumption is an overstatement of reality. Neither do I support bribing politicians. I don't think that is acceptable.

I believe the crux of the issue is tree hugging and the various 0 agendas are not popular. People simply don't want to give up their standard of living, be inconvenienced or pay more even if it has downstream consequences sometime in the future. You can disagree or hate it all you want but this changes nothing. I think the only way out is to keep digging (improving technology) .. the market is clearly going green the only real question on the table is the time horizon for the transition.

This is stupid, the oil companies are not the ones burning hydrocarbons the consumers are. The consumers are therefore accountable. If there were no consumers there would be no oil companies.

No, I'm not going to look at it from your perspective because your perspective is counterfactual nonsense. If you have a cogent credible argument then make it. Right now all I'm hearing from you are unbelievable excuses.

Everyone knows where the CO2 goes after you burn hydrocarbons. This is taught in every gradeschool. It is not credible to argue ignorance or oil companies are somehow pulling the wool over our eyes.

Oil companies are aggressively preventing people from solving a problem? What are you talking about? Numerous crackpots have explained to me over the years they are buying up all of the green energy patents and hoarding technology. Are you one of THOSE people?

Irrelevant. Whether or not you can solve something on your own doesn't make you any less accountable for your actions.

Different yes. The consumers are the ones knowingly releasing CO2 en masse into the atmosphere so the consumer is principally accountable. If you want to ascribe secondary accountability to oil companies for knowingly facilitating their customers evil deeds that's fine you can do that. I don't however support holding oil companies accountable without first holding all of our pansy asses accountable.

This is overgeneralizing. The context of the statement was " I drive a car regularly. If I were to accidentally kill someone while driving - even if it were truly just a bad luck mistake"

Manufacturers are not "often held accountable" for bad luck mistakes on the part of the driver.

Are you like 5? Do you worship Adolf Hitler? Do you wish you could have blown Joseph Goebbels whistle?

The statement was "tough for any disease vaccinated against to spread at all" ... this doesn't mean tough to spread... it means tough to spread at all. Tough to spread might mean the chance of spreading is reduced by some large percentage. Tough to spread at all means the chance of spreading is mostly 0.

The claim is not only not self-consistent it is well known to be incorrect for respiratory viruses like flu and covid.

This is a silly argument. If the source were thermal noise which is inherently nondeterministic it would make no difference.

This is a meandering series of non sequiturs.

It would be foolish for anyone who designs a large complex system to not factor in "human fallibility".

The issue of "human fallibility" however is infinitely expansive. It doesn't necessarily follow language selection must be dominated by a single consideration such as "memory safety".