Before the bots, it was troll farms. Now the troll farmers have lost their jobs, replaced by software. Plus ça change, plus c'est le même chose.

Easier is relative, though. All the nuclear weapons on Earth would still be two orders of magnitude too little to get an adequate atmosphere. As I understand, you'd need several thousand gigatons to get a low single-digit percent of Earth's atmospheric pressure.

And for humans to survive for more than about a minute even with external oxygen (the Armstrong limit), you'd need to reach about 40% of Earth's atmospheric pressure. There's probably not enough CO2 ice on all of Mars to pull that off. Best guess is that you'd need four or five times as much just to reach that limit, though the best-case estimates would result in exceeding that limit by a factor of two, so there's a lot of uncertainty here.

Whether releasing a lot of that CO2 would cause enough of a greenhouse effect to melt more polar ice is unclear, but one would assume that if this were possible, the planet would not have cooled, so that seems unlikely. Chances are, you would have to melt *all* the ice and periodically add energy from some external source to re-melt it as it forms, or else built planet-sized mirrors in Mars L4 and L5 to increase how much sunlight hits Mars.

Surviving Martian soil is the easy part. Being able to survive at near zero air pressure is the hard part.

That's not what a cancellation fee does, though. By definition, when you pay a cancellation fee, they are no longer providing service.

Because that $2,000 is consideration for the other party providing something. If the penalty clause is the entire remainder of the contract fee, then the other party should also be compelled to provide service for the remainder of the contract term, or some equivalent consideration. Otherwise, it isn't really much of a contract.

If they get out of providing service, then you should get out of paying, except for some penalty to make up for sunk costs, e.g. the prorated cost of provisioning initial service, the prorated cost of a phone that was free with contract, etc., plus some *reasonable* amount to discourage people from pulling out of the contract on a whim.

Also, understand that the company providing the service had way more power over the contract than you. You were almost certainly told "take it or leave it" when presented with the contract. That's why putting limits on what contracts of adhesion can do is generally considered to be a critical function of government.

The part you're missing is that contracts like this are contracts of adhesion, and there may or may not even be an option to sign up one month at a time. And even if there is, having a penalty clause for canceling a contract is reasonable, but having a penalty clause that massively exceeds any plausible damages isn't, particularly when one of the parties in that contract has dramatically more power than the other, and that party is the one writing the contract and demanding the penalty clause. That's why it is reasonable for governments to limit the amount of those damages through statutes. It is just compensating for that inherent power imbalance.

Also, real-world companies aren't typically selling bonds against their subscription revenue, and unless this is a very small business and the contracts are among equals (which a customer relationship almost never is), a bank isn't going to care about the difference between 1,000 subscriptions and 1,001, nor do stockholders. They care about the difference between 1,000 and 100,000. Orders of magnitude matter. A few cancellations around the margins are noise. So although you might be correct in theory, in practice, single cancellations don't matter, and if the cancellation numbers are high enough to matter, there's something much more seriously wrong with the company, and locking consumers in to a long-term contract likely serves no one's best interests, including the company's, because that just reduces the pressure on the company to fix those structural problems.

The thing is, if you stop using the service after two months, they aren't providing you a benefit, and it isn't reasonable for them to keep collecting money. And charging exorbitant fees has the net effect of forcing people to continue paying a month at a time because they can't afford the cancellation fee all at once. That's what makes it predatory.

If we were talking about a small company, where someone canceling service (e.g. a maid service) would mean that they have to go seek out other clients to stay in business, then charging such a fee makes sense. For a big company, it is really rather hard to justify.

This is doubly true if the company either does not offer a month-to-month plan or charges only slightly less for it. At most, you have cost the company the difference between the yearly contract and month-to-month price, and if the penalty is greater than that difference, that's really not right.

They will if they want viewers over age 30. I like shows where I can just keep watching episodes one after the next for a month, so nearly everything I watch is a decade old or more. It's not worth my time and effort to figure out whether I might like to watch a show if I'm going to run out of episodes in a day of viewing.

I can only think of one show that I've watched when it had fewer than 20 episodes, and I regret not waiting longer, because it would have been much more enjoyable watching three seasons instead of two a year from now. Modern shows require too much effort for too little payoff. The threshold where I feel like it is actually worth my time is about 40 episodes. And most new shows will be canceled long before they reach that threshold, which means most new shows aren't worth my time.

Yup. I never said it made sense. They're several years too late, and should have shut down that purchase before it happened. But I'm thinking about some quote along the lines of "The best time to figure it out was years ago, but the second best time to figure it out is today," or something like that. :-)

It's a Dutch fab company that got gobbled up by a Chinese company. It was originally part of Philips. Foreign companies didn't create jobs in this case, unless the fab grew significantly in the last six years. If anything, they've been selling off some of their existing fabs.

From all indications, the main purpose of the takeover was to prevent sending technology secrets to China, and possibly to prevent the illegal sale of their chips to Russia.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

This. The dot-com bubble was still a bubble, but there were real companies producing real websites, some of which were even useful.

It's the same thing with AI. The fact that the technology exists and sometimes is used for things that are useful doesn't change the fact that there's a *huge* hype bubble around AI, and everybody and their mother is dumping piles of money into AI, hoping that they'll get lucky and back one of the winning horses. All the while, companies with no real business plan other than "AI" or "AI first" or whatever are hoping the investors won't notice that the companies really don't know what to do with AI, and they're just hoping that if they build it better, first, they'll "win" or whatever.

It's a bubble. It's a huge bubble. I have no idea when it will burst, but it will. They always do.

Did Bose sell non-cloud speakers? Yes? Then they paid a premium because of those features. The fact that streaming to multiple speakers requires the cloud is, by itself, a major bricking of basic functionality that probably destroys the entire utility of these speakers for a large percentage of their users.

Yes. If the company is competent, yes. This is all just trivial server logic. You maintain a fixed frontend/server endpoint library that parses the inputs and ties it to your backend systems. If you rewrite a backend (which should be rare), you update all of the frontend code to translate the data as needed. If you want to change the way your data is passed between the device and the server, you fork a new endpoint library.

The ongoing cost to support older devices, then, is an hour or two of maintenance work if you do some major backend rewrite, or pretty much zero otherwise, because you're continuing to keep the servers alive to provide services for your current devices.

So when a company says that it is turning down support for older devices because it can't afford to support them, what it really means is either A. they have saturated the market, and the only way to get people to buy the old devices is through planned obsolescence of the old devices, B. they have found some critical security bug in the old firmware and nobody knows how to build new firmware for the hardware anymore because the toolchain won't run on their current operating system, or C. they're incompetent and don't know how to design servers properly.

Either way, it's a strong reason to never buy their products again.

I mean, yes ostensibly, but the reality is that cloud services shouldn't be *allowed* to disappear unless the company is either going out of business or is shuttering an entire business unit. As long as Bose still makes any cloud-based speakers at all, that's really not okay.

That's simply not true. COVID caused a 30% increase in heart attack deaths among young adults during the first two years of the pandemic, with undiagnosed myocarditis believed to be the primary culprit. Myocarditis and pericarditis are, respectively, inflammation of the heart muscle and the area around it, caused by an immune response to an infection.

So COVID absolutely can get into your blood, can infect blood cells, and can spread anywhere in your body. It isn't guaranteed to reach your heart, and in fact, serious heart complications are relatively rare, but it can, and COVID-infection-induced myocarditis and pericarditis are both well-documented at this point.

Also, I think you're also misunderstanding how intramuscular injection works. The vaccine isn't put into your bloodstream like an IV. It is put into a muscle. And unlike the virus, which is self-replicating and can move around your body over time, the vaccine infects a cell once and produces output for a specific amount of time before it self-destructs, so unless you get very unlucky and end up with some of the vaccine getting somewhere that it doesn't belong, the overwhelming majority of the vaccine stays confined to the muscle into which it is injected, as do most of the spike proteins. To the extent that it spreads, it mainly ends up in the local lymph nodes. The amount that ends up in random parts of your body is normally very small.

That's why the statistical risk from the virus is considerably higher than the risk from the vaccines. Even though your immune system is attacking those foreign proteins, it almost never is happening in your heart with the vaccine, whereas it is much more likely to be happening in your heart with a natural infection, and that risk increases by something like 11x if you have never been vaccinated because it takes longer for your immune system to realize that it needs to kick into gear and attack the virus.

Yes, that's certainly one way that it can get there, but once something is in your nose, gut, or lungs, the barrier to your bloodstream is minimal. After all, if that were not the case, you would not be able to breathe or absorb nutrients from food.

Either way, the point of that comment wasn't that it gets to your digestive system through the blood, but rather that it doesn't stay mostly confined to your lungs, and can spread anywhere in your body. The lungs aren't really even the primary target/symptom area at this point.

Actually, no. It is believed to be caused by the virus attacking and damaging the epithelial cells that line the blood vessels. The ACE2 receptor just happens to be how the virus gets into those cells, and that's also what makes it sometimes attack the heart muscle in young people and cause myocarditis.

That, coupled with lower bloodstream involvement in general, explains why there's no sign of increased heart attacks or strokes after mRNA-based COVID vaccination. The shots that did potentially cause clotting issues were the ones built around attenuated viruses.

Except it isn't, as I said above.

But even if what you're saying turned out to be correct, the virus would still do exactly the same thing, but with an actual virus behind those spike proteins. So instead of just causing your body to temporarily act like it has gotten a low dose of an ACE inhibitor and have slightly lower blood pressure, it also attacks the cells it hits and kills or damages them. Instead of rare cases of mild myocarditis from those spike proteins interacting with the heart muscle that mostly resolve on their own, you have cases of acute myocarditis often resulting in death.

Any time you have a vaccine whether weakened or mRNA, there's a chance that the symptoms caused by the virus will also be caused by the vaccine, just typically with much lower severity. And the whole point of that vaccination is to expose you at a lower level so that when your body sees it for real, it attacks it more quickly and prevents you from having those bad outcomes.

It gets a pass because it does not purport to be the truth.

When religious teachings are limited to the existence of creator beings and deities and things that you can't see or interact with, no. They're just mythology. When they are limited to how you should behave at a high level, no. They're just philosophy. There are bright lines, though, like telling people how to vote, where religion stops being religion and starts being a political organization under the guise of religion, and that's not okay.

It also starts to become very grey when religious leaders advocate things like vaccine refusal, because that can cause public health crises, like the rather alarming measles outbreak in Texas. I would argue that doing so is crossing a line, because as was proven in that case, even the relative isolation of a religious community is not adequate to prevent a lack of vaccinations from causing a major public health crisis across multiple counties.

Depends. If the scientist's theory provides robust evidence, was authored by someone without a history of publishing fake papers and who has no ties to anyone with such a history, uses math and research methodologies appropriately, and has been published in a peer-reviewed journal that is appropriate for the subject area, then it should be followed up with additional studies to figure out why there is a conflict between the previous studies.

If the scientist's theory provides little more than a different way to manipulate the numbers from other studies (metaanalysis) in ways that contradict scientific consensus, with no new data, was authored by or edited by someone who has authored multiple similar papers that attempt to push a similar viewpoint, is filled with blatant methodology errors that should be obvious to a second-year college student in the sciences or social sciences, and is a medical article published in a physics journal, it should be immediately discredited as complete and utter garbage.

There is a point in the middle beyond which it makes no sense to give something the benefit of the doubt.

When a scientist is repeatedly falsifying information or repeatedly using poor scientific practices with obvious methodology errors or misunderstanding the basic science of what they're talking about while writing a paper filled with pseudoscientific bulls**t in a way intended to fool lay people who don't understand the science into believing it, that's disinformation.

When a journalist reads such a paper and promotes it as proof that their preexisting opinion was right all along, that's disinformation. When this is further fueled and amplified by professional chaos mongers in Russian troll farms, that's disinformation.

Finally, if the "proof" of something is published only in a YouTube video or similar, that one factor by itself is enough to guarantee that it is garbage without even considering any of the other factors above, because it means what they are saying is so obviously false that if someone read it on paper, they would immediately call the author a moron, but they're hiding that tiny bit of dubious information, spread across a one-hour video, because baiting the audience will get more views on their channel.

It does. But the key word here is *healthy*. And part of that requires everyone involved in the conversation having a proper understanding that the vast majority of papers that go against the status quo turn out to be incorrect, either because of methodology mistakes (honest) or because of falsified data (fraud). As long as the folks reading the papers read it with a healthy skepticism, it's fine.

Where it becomes a problem is when a few researchers repeatedly and intentionally create multiple similar dissenting papers with similar flaws, getting retraction after retraction, in an apparent effort to mislead, and then people latch onto those papers as truth and ignore the retractions after major flaws are pointed out, or worse see the retractions as proof of some kind of conspiracy to hide the truth.

Where it becomes disinformation is when people start cherry-picking those dissenting papers, ignoring the mountain of evidence that contradicts those papers, and using only the cherry-picked papers to claim that their fringe viewpoint is the truth and everyone else is wrong. And unfortunately, a certain subset of the media, influencers, etc. were very much doing that, and it got out of control.

That's not healthy debate. That's Fox News and one side shouting over the other, reinforcing people's preconceived notions. That's the opposite of healthy debate, and resulted in people being the opposite of healthy, which is to say, dead from COVID.