I could see an active DisplayPort to HDMI 2.1 dongle with a chip inside that actually converts DisplayPort signals to HDMI 2.1 signals being possible. However I suspect it would be a bit more than $10 today. Worse yet, such a setup would most certainly add latency to an application, gaming, that is sensitive already to any delays. Gaming is what drives the 120Hz and above refresh rates...

Yeah, they goofed up on the Coke Vitamin D deficiency awareness campaign there. They really should have gone with "Go get some sun, get a tan!" instead.

That video reminds me of my local post office, got to love government run business!

I worried it might be a copy protection, but according to Wikipedia, https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F..., DisplayPort has had HDCP since version 1.1.
However, HDMI had HDCP in 2003, DisplayPort 1.1 did not get it until 2006 and it still was no universal.
In addition audio return (ARC/eARC), remote control via HDMI-CEC, and generally better over longer cable runs give HDMI some advantages in the living room.
Overall it seems HDMI benefit from being first to the living room and carrying that momentum.

Our best hope is that USBC will come for HDMI on the back of the television someday...then we can throw those HDMI cables in the bin with serial, parallel, PS/2, FireWire, proprietary phone chargers, camera connectors...

I fear that most DisplayPort to HDMI 2.1 dongles are not active adapters but instead passive physical connection switches. The HDMI 2.1 electrical signaling is still handled in base computer hardware when the HDMI adapter and a HDMI device is detected. That means that the base computer hardware still needs to know how to do HDMI 2.1 to supply the correct electrical signal. Although to my frustration it has never worked the other way around with a HDMI ports being simply physical convertible to a DisplayPort.

I would really love to see televisions with DisplayPort, but it seems the connector never caught on with consumer devices; the HDMI connector momentum is pretty strong sadly. I wish HDMI would go away all together. Television, GPU, and computer manufacturers just stopped playing with the HDMI Forum. Or maybe at least we will get USBC ports on televisions support DisplayPort as the protocol instead.

Agreed. I know there are people out there who truly need help; whether they got themselves in the situation because of their own bad decisions, misfortune, or some combination of both is something to know. Of course determining if they have need at all is critical so we do no reward grifters.

I am not sure I would even trust a tax return on GoFundMe since it could be forged or altogether someone else. There are good organizations I have worked with like the salvation army who are trained to vet need and provide for those who are truly in need; although I would still be wary of corruption and a middle man. For me I have enjoyed most getting to know the people I am handing money to personally, actually being part of their lives, and them mine. I see them as an investment; maybe one I will not see a monetary return on, but at minimum the community will benefit from them being a positive contributing member.

Okay...SNAP is gone, so now Walmart has to increase wages; otherwise their employees could not work because they are starving.
If they are not starving...well they do not need SNAP and Walmart pays enough.
They cannot work if they are starving; eventually they would die; then Walmart has no employees.
SNAP came first and created the opportunity for Walmart to pay employees less because the government would pick up the slack.
Walmart may be slimy, but the government is to blame as usual.

Yes, always. Tomorrow when Walmart has no meat bag employees, all replaced by robots, Walmart will still be the cheapest place to spend SNAP dollars. Walmart gets SNAP dollars, because those who have the power to spend the SNAP dollars award Walmart for providing the service the prefer.

Walmart pays taxes, the taxes go into SNAP, SNAP goes to Walmart employees, Walmart employees spend SNAP at Walmart...the only mooches are those on SNAP that do not really need it, and the middle men in the government that get a salary for distributing SNAP. The ones who get cheated are the middle class who make enough money to not need SNAP, have their wages stolen as taxes that go into SNAP, then have to pay higher prices at Walmart because they are competing with free SNAP dollars inflating prices.

There indeed could be more people who cannot make their basic needs, but the increase in crowdfunding does not tell us that. It only tells us that there are more crowdfunding request for basic needs In 2025. It does not mean there are actually more people who cannot make their basic needs in 2025. It could be that more people realized crowdfunding might help, or it is a great new grift that people fall for. For instance, in 1929 there were no crowdfunding requests for basic needs on GoFundMe; but I suspect that there were more people in the great depression that could not meet their basic needs then today.

This sounds great to me! Instead of the government bureaucracy as a middle man poorly distributing or, from the latest headlines, out right stealing my tax dollars; I get to keep more of my money and I can help those in my local community directly.

If we are concerned about the oligarchy, where the rich create government policy; well then reducing the government's power would limit what they can influence.

Everyone knows the Internet runs through pipes, internet pipes, not internet wires. Underground internet pipes to be specific. I mean what kind of idiots string their internet cables around in the air like Christmas lights anyway?

Please seed a torrent with all the books. We need decentralized solutions anyway.

No I would not say the United States should bare the burden, but I do not think any of the other medical systems could exist in a vacuum without the United States.
However, I would be the United States could exist without the medical systems of the rest of the world.
As a result saying that the United States should learn from the other system's "success" seems perhaps to neglect that then innovation may slow.
But that is a lot of speculation with no facts or studies to back up my assertions there.

It would seem that if that was true then another insurance company would just rise up. take a smaller cut for their profit, and reduce costs to patients and win the market. And we would stop using the aforementioned major insurers who threaten to drop cancer centers mentioned in the summary of this story, driving them out of business, or forcing them to change.

So all that brings us back to your original post on social institutions.
My primary issue with government social institutions is being forced to contribute to them.
I am all for a private social institution for healthcare not run by the government, where people can voluntarily contribute their money to a pool to help cover each other's medical bills. The institution would have some operating costs, just like the government run ones, but could be non-profit or something, no share holders answer to and have to bleed cancer patients to line their pockets.

ChatGPT (which could be making things up) tells me that the breakdown of healthcare spending is as follows:
Government programs: 43%
Private for-profit insurers: ~20%
Private non-profit insurers: ~8%
Employer self-funded plans: ~13%
Out-of-pocket: 10%
Charity & philanthropy: 2–3%

If that is true then it is hard to point the finger at Private for-profit insurers being the problem with the United States spending excess.

"RTO" stands for Recovery Time Objective, which is the maximum amount of time a system or business process can be offline after a disruption before causing significant negative consequences. It's a crucial metric in disaster recovery planning that defines the target time for restoring critical functions after an incident.

If people are too poor to save, they are also too poor to have 12.4% of every paycheck taken from them for Social Security. The catch is they cannot use that money when they need it most it is locked up until retirement, if they live long enough. I agree some would be tricked out of their savings if left on their own, but forcing everyone into a one-size-fits-all system just guarantees the poor lose control of that money by law, instead of by bad luck or bad actors. But I agree, there are people that will need help saving and a system that encourages it.

I fear that the United States Healthcare systems high cost drives medical innovation.
I understand the US still leads in medical innovation and many other countries may benefit from, while perhaps not carrying the cost of development.
If we were to mimic other countries "better examples" we might end up stifling the system that gives us the medical advancements we enjoy.

However, it seems there is a lot of room for improvement from reducing malpractice costs but capping litigation, and in affect reducing excess tests and procedures ordered by the practice of defensive medicine to avoid getting sued. Allowing more people to practice medicine to increase the supply of medical providers reducing cost with more supply. Addressing medical billing complexities to reduce administrative overhead. And throwing out drug patents as well, because I am not convinced drugs are the answer to our medical issues anyway so nothing lost there.

The sad thing is the outcomes, especially with dollars spent...but I am not sure that is a medical issue, but more a lifestyle choice we as US citizens make from our nutrition to our activities, or lack their of really making us sick and medical science can only mitigate that so much. Or just that we have the money to throw at medicine but the returns are pretty limited.