It's how Hollywood started. Nowadays if you even look at a movie wrong, they'll sue. To make matters worse, if you're a California taxpayer (like me) you're now being forced, under penalty of prison, to donate part of your income to Hollywood.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fentert...

So the "workers" (mostly already wealthy writers and actors) successfully priced themselves out of the market, and campaigned for politicians to regulate the studios away. Obviously the taxpayer's fault.

So even if you don't look at the movie at all, you'll pay.

The trouble with Windows' insistence on backing up is this: it has no way to tell which files in Documents, Music, Videos, etc, need to be backed up, and which don't. For example FL Studio puts a ton of files in Documents\Image-Line. Around three gigs. Most of those are provided in the installer, so it's crazy to use cloud space for those. Of all that, only Documents\Image-Line\FL Studio\Projects needs backing up, and possibly a few user-created presets lurking somewhere. And it is a similar story for much of my music software. Then there are many gigs of music files that I have backed up on NAS anyway, so no need to back them up to the cloud (and if I did, I'd blow my 100G cap).

But Microsoft in their infinite wisdom think it's sensible to just try and back up all that to the cloud, possibly using a free account with only 5G total, for 100's of gigs of data.

No, not even in China. Silicon array technology is way down the learning curve; they know how to neutralize the waste products (hint: neutralize HF with NaOH), and the process doesn't really produce toxic waste.

Pretty much everybody. You get a 20 to 25 year warranty on most solar arrays, and as much as a 40 year warranty on some of the top of the line arrays. Nobody throws them out after ten years; it makes no sense.

Incorrect. This is misinformation fed to you by think-tanks funded by the fossil fuel industry (and sometimes by paid nuclear-power lobbyists). The vast majority of solar arrays are single-crystal silicon, and the raw materials are sand, aluminum, and glass. None of these produce vast quantities of "incredibly toxic" waste to make or to recycle.

If you look at any of these claims that making solar arrays produces toxic waste, and drill down into what the solar array industry actually does, you'll find that all these reports on "OMG! Toxic waste!" are for processes that aren't actually used.

Maybe in the optimum location, but for most of the planet, no.

If you actually look at real world power demand curves you will see that power demand decreases, not increases, at night.

Yes, maybe there are some slashdotters playing video games at two in the morning, but this is not a huge power draw.

No. The order is not to seek alternatives to coal. The order is to identify existing regulations and policies to seek alternatives to coal.

You're reading this exactly opposite to what it does. The reason agencies are being asked to identify policies to seek alternatives to coal is so that the executive can rescind them.

Gosh, if only there were thousands of locations all over the country, in which you could install dozens of chargers, which charge your car more than fast enough, and which were all conveniently located near roads, and which - for instance - could be sited on an existing, now going defunct, site which won't be used as much by ICE cars as time goes by.

The EV charging argument is dead - fast charging and high-capacity batteries. Same way that apartments never used to come with parking spaces at all... things will evolve. Same way they had to add telecoms, laundry rooms, Internet, cable/satellite TV, online rent payments, etc. etc. etc.

If they want the customers, they'll add in EV chargers to the existing spaces. It's really that simple. After a bunch of tenants associations demand it, it'll happen and become the norm. And they'll add their 10% to the cost and realise it's actually a direct revenue stream (unlike all the above which are just ways to entice customers) so long as they don't go silly with it (because then people will just charge elsewhere).

Saying that THAT's going to be the blocker? You're just looking for excuses. It's that simple.

Landlords will start lobbing in EV chargers with a 10% commission as soon as their tenants start demanding them. And then laugh at the free money for doing nothing, because people are too lazy to just drive it down the road to an already-existing gas station converted to have EV points on it.

I'm literally at a workplace with EV charging points, and EV vehicles for company use. They save a fortune on their own transport expenses AND they get revenue from... customers! Willing to charge their EVs! There are sometimes literal arguments over the spaces (e.g. when a non-EV car is blocking an EV charger).

On my way home are a dozen stations with EV charging. And MOST houses (not all, granted) can have an EV charger fitted very simply. And new-builds are starting to mandate them.

Sorry, but "oh the software's a bit clunky" or "my landlord might not want to" is literally the bottom of the barrel for arguments.

For reference, I don't drive an EV. My next car - without doubt - will be an EV. And I'll install an EV charger at home to do it. I literally bought a house years ago with the criteria for having an EV charger... before I ever had an EV. Because, to me, it's like buying a house that isn't on the electric or doesn't have broadband. Whether or not I need/use it this instant, I want my house to be able to do that.

So I bought a house which deliberately has a driveway, a porch with power, and an ideal spot for installing an EV charger. The only reason I don't change today... is an actual problem with EVs... it's a bit pricey to lay out for one up-front. But when my car needs more than a basic service... I'll be pricing it up.

It is a universal constant that when I have a machine, I want to tell it what to do, and I want it to do that.

I don't want it running off doing stuff I don't need it to, nor telling me what I can or can't do, especially when the restrictions are arbitrary and non-technical.

I've already decided at this point that my next machines won't be Windows. I ran Slackware as a primary desktop for 10 years, I'm not scared of it at all... and it did what I asked it to do. But even Linux has systemd nonsense that breaks my "golden rule" all the time now. It is, without question, however one of the closest modern OS to just doing what I tell it to (even if that's "remove systemd").

We lost sight decades ago, and Microsoft aren't making money from Windows any more so they don't really care. There won't be another XP / 7 / 10 in terms of just letting you do what you need to do and getting out of the way as an OS.

The purpose of an OS is to get the hell out of my way and do what I told it to do. Windows increasingly does the opposite. I've given up tolerating it again, and things like the Steam Deck and Valve's input have progressed my old classic gaming to the point where I wanted it to be back in the early Wine/Crossover/Steam Machine days. As usual, that was my only real hangout, because everything boring and technical I want to do could already be done on Linux and with open-source software for years.

Now... I really don't see a reason for Windows to even exist, let alone be the OS of choice.

Enjoy the few years before oil prices surge when everywhere else mandates EV and the demand for oil plummets.

As it is, for decades I heard about nothing else but the cheap fuel in the US compared to the rest of the world... and that's gone REALLY quiet for the last few years. Maybe you need to invade some more oil-producing countries again, that's bound to lower the price, right?

20% of new car sales worldwide are EV (not counting hybrid etc.). And we haven't even STARTED actually taxing/banning fuel based vehicle properly yet.

Embrace -- You are here.
Extend
Extinguish

Apple reinvents a mode present on countless millions of devices and dozens of architectures for decades and suddenly it's "news".

Satisfactory according to what standard? Just the fact that you live in this country at all already means you're at a much higher standard than half of the planet.

If you're truly in a position where you can't save even small amounts like that, then your living situation was never sustainable to begin with. Something HAS to give, whether that's more of your free time or where you're living. Example: You're making minimum wage but you feel entitled to live in the SF bay area. That's a self-inflicted financial hardship.

Shit, I know some people who always complain about not having enough money for anything, but every year they have a brand new iphone they financed from apple. That's how you know your priorities are incredibly fucking broken.

When I was in college, I had to roommate with a fucking drug addict. He was annoying as shit, and would literally steal food that I put in our pantry (I later found it stashed in his closet.) Asshole also stole an entire bottle of hydrocodone I was given after having my wisdom teeth removed. Fortunately I didn't even need it, I only took one pill because the pharmacist suggested I do so. I put up with him anyways because the rent was cheap. Ended up keeping everything in my own room and went to home depot to buy a keyed doorknob. Also bought a mini fridge for I think $100. That investment was worth it because I was no longer buying food for two people.

Meanwhile, some people think they need to live on campus in an insanely overpriced dorm room, then blame everybody BUT themselves for the fact that they owe $300,000 in student loans. If a person is that stupid, they really had no business going to college to begin with.

And little numbers add up to big ones too. Why would you spend $5 on a coffee that costs 50 cents to make on your own? I've never seen anybody accuse coffee shops of usury. If you got a k-12 education within the last 50 years, then you already knew smoking was a bad idea before you ever could have gotten your first cigarette, and those aren't cheap. There hasn't even been a cigarette commercial since 1971. But It's mostly poor people and Europeans that buy them anyways.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20...
"The period 1950-1970 was a true golden age for American science. Young Ph.D's could choose among excellent jobs, and anyone with a decent scientific idea could be sure of getting funds to pursue it. The impressive successes of scientific projects during the Second World War had paved the way for the federal government to assume responsibility for the support of basic research. Moreover, much of the rest of the world was still crippled by the after-effects of the war. At the same time, the G.I. Bill of Rights sent a whole generation back to college transforming the United States from a nation of elite higher education to a nation of mass higher education. ...
        By now, in the 1990's, the situation has changed dramatically. With the Cold War over, National Security is rapidly losing its appeal as a means of generating support for scientific research. There are those who argue that research is essential for our economic future, but the managers of the economy know better. The great corporations have decided that central research laboratories were not such a good idea after all. Many of the national laboratories have lost their missions and have not found new ones. The economy has gradually transformed from manufacturing to service, and service industries like banking and insurance don't support much scientific research. To make matters worse, the country is almost 5 trillion dollars in debt, and scientific research is among the few items of discretionary spending left in the national budget. There is much wringing of hands about impending shortages of trained scientific talent to ensure the Nation's future competitiveness, especially since by now other countries have been restored to economic and scientific vigor, but in fact, jobs are scarce for recent graduates. Finally, it should be clear by now that with more than half the kids in America already going to college, academic expansion is finished forever.
        Actually, during the period since 1970, the expansion of American science has not stopped altogether. Federal funding of scientific research, in inflation-corrected dollars, doubled during that period, and by no coincidence at all, the number of academic researchers has also doubled. Such a controlled rate of growth (controlled only by the available funding, to be sure) is not, however, consistent with the lifestyle that academic researchers have evolved. The average American professor in a research university turns out about 15 Ph.D students in the course of a career. In a stable, steady-state world of science, only one of those 15 can go on to become another professor in a research university. In a steady-state world, it is mathematically obvious that the professor's only reproductive role is to produce one professor for the next generation. But the American Ph.D is basically training to become a research professor. It didn't take long for American students to catch on to what was happening. The number of the best American students who decided to go to graduate school started to decline around 1970, and it has been declining ever since. ...
        Let me finish by summarizing what I've been trying to tell you. We stand at an historic juncture in the history of science. The long era of exponential expansion ended decades ago, but we have not yet reconciled ourselves to that fact. The present social structure of science, by which I mean institutions, education, funding, publications and so on all evolved during the period of exponential expansion, before The Big Crunch. They are not suited to the unknown future we face. Today's scientific leaders, in the universities, government, industry and the scientific societies are mostly people who came of age during the golden era, 1950 - 1970. I am myself part of that generation. We think those were normal times and expect them to return. But we are wrong. Nothing like it will ever happen again. It is by no means certain that science will even survive, much less flourish, in the difficult times we face. Before it can survive, those of us who have gained so much from the era of scientific elites and scientific illiterates must learn to face reality, and admit that those days are gone forever. I think we have our work cut out for us."

Don't care.