Not serving a special interest is not discrimination, and "the disabled" is not a group. This is nothing but a troll.

"No one wants to be CEO if they think things are going to shit and they'll be to blame, even if they know they get a golden parachute out of it."

Bullshit. Virtually the entire world's population would want to be treated like a CEO for even a single day. Sociopaths who exploit workers and pocket obscene salaries and incentives also do not want those benefits to end or to be accountable, that is what you mean to say. There are boatloads of cretins who will exploit a company to get a golden parachute and all those people share something in common, they want to get more.

No, she's using the government to help her take control of openAI. She is incapable of knowing what an "utter shithead" even is.

"1) Most of the measles cases are in Texas, among their large Amish and Mennonite population. These people avoid vaccinations for religious reasons."

So for the same reasons as ALL populations in the US. All anti-vax is religious. Also, how were the measles outbreaks in these populations before?

"The US is apparently in good shape as far as measles go. "

Just not as good as it used to be.

"Yes, it's a concern, but not much of a concern and it isn't expected to become a problem."

Not expected to be by what authority? RFK Jr?

"In comparison, the US has epidemics of obesity, childhood diabetes, and autism."

Why change the subject? These aren't infectious diseased and don't have vaccines to address them. You realize we can address both?

"These three are the elephants in the room, ..."

What room? Your anti-vax room?

"The rise in autism has been shown (by study) *not* to be due to changes in diagnosis method or access to medical professionals."

Citation please.

"Since 2000, the incidence of childhood diabetes has tripled."

And we have an anti-vax problem.

"Measles is a concern, but for the three epidemics we *actually* have the MSM is strangely silent."

They are not silent AT ALL, but lying about it suits your narrative, these days"three epidemics" are not "epidemics" and have nothing to do with the anti vaxxers.

"Almost as if reporting on the health of the US isn't really their goal..."

And not yours either.

"Is that the case? I don't know, the article doesn't say."

Yes it does. 'Dr. Paul Offit, an expert on infectious disease and immunology, told the Guardian that "We're living in a post-herd-immunity world.'

You didn't invent the term, "post-herd-immunity" meant what it meant when that statement was made. The VERY FIRST THING that the summary says is exactly that.

"I doubt it, as it appears the Texas outbreak (largest in the US) remains concentrated in the particular community it started in."

So not only do you have reading comprehension issues, you like to make scientific assumptions. How large does a "community" have to be to meet your criteria?

"So it appears to me this is sensationalism..."

We all know you started with this conclusion, then tried to justify it.

"...we are not seeing the breakdown of herd immunity as a whole but rather a very large outbreak among a subpopulation that was never herd immune."

Add you your list of poorly defined concepts is "subpopulation". Is a living room a "subpopulation"? Is a continent a "subpopulation"? Playing games with terms doesn't get anyone anywhere. Herd immunity is a large scale characteristic, local outbreaks are not absolute proofs, that's why the expert said "I think the measles outbreak proves that." Try engaging in good faith for a change.

"...but so far I don't see evidence that there will be a return of endemic measle..."

And who are you, and why should anyone give a shit what your opinion is? You're clearly demonstrating bias.

"In the meantime, might want to avoid the outbreak areas if you have a not-yet-immunized child or some reason to believe immunization has failed."

Who, that's some real expertise on display. We're all really grateful for your expert advice.

"Ran a 105 fever for almost a week..."

LOL

"Beyond bullshit fear mongering nonsense."

LOLOL

Bingo. Cut off their gravy train, not mine! You said you'd hurt the right people!

Because an "operating system" sounds big but isn't big. A browser is big, it shouldn't be but it is.

Also, an OS is technically driven, a browser is financially driven. There are a lot more sociopaths in browser chain. An open source operating system is worthless, as an end-user product, without a browser to run on it. An OS is a glorified app launcher from the user's perspective.

Walmart exists because, despite all the complexities of making countless products, there is one thing all products have in common, they get sold. And the selling part is where money changes hands and where the profit is made. Selling is the easiest, the least labor-intensive, the most scalable and imposes the least liability YET it is where all the profit is, by design. The Dells and Walmarts of the world exist to do no work while sucking the blood out of the people, in this case Google is the Walmart, your open source operating system is the thankless task performed for "free" so that Google can take all the money, Linux's job is to pick the produce in the field.

Did Musk, or Jobs, or Andreesson, or Dell, do any of the work to make the products they are known for? Not really, but none of them are "dependent upon one huge funding source" because they've got their hands in a giant cash register. Their goal is to take in all the money and pay none out, that's what makes them billionaires. Don't like it? Stop voting for Republicans. Now you wouldn't do that, would you?

'Firefox's underlying Gecko browser engine is "the only browser engine that is held not by Big Tech but by a nonprofit," he said.'

No, Firefox is held by Google, his testimony shows that. Firefox is just as beholden to Google and the Chrome team is. That's the problem.

'Losing that revenue all at once would mean Mozilla would have to make "significant cuts across the company," Muhlheim testified...'

Oh no, that would mean the cuts would have their intended effect! Why is a Firefox hog better than an Apple hog? They're both feeding at the trough of corruption.

If Mozilla can't justify its own existence without sucking at Google's teat, they can say goodbye. What we have here is a business executive, Muhlheim, getting rich off Google's monopolistic bribes and complaining that you can't impose a solution because it hurts him.

It doesn't matter "how it works" when it's not clear what it is for. What problem does it solve? And for whom? And how is it deployed? And why is this part of an openAI portfolio?

Don't we have authentication already? Why do we want to involve Sam Altman in it?

Of course a transition to AI will happen as quickly as billionaires can achieve it. It's profitable in its own right, but there's a lot more.

There is no faster way to enslave a population than to make them unemployed, hungry and homeless. AIs can be owned, people cannot (currently). Billionaires seek to own everything; AI can be owned. If AI can do everything, billionaires no longer need lower classes and do not have to negotiate for anything. And they will not. It is no surprise that Silicon Valley creeps want to return to company towns, they are running out of things to own.

"DevOPS is for lazy people. "We can waste a lot more effort itterating than bothering to design right in the first place."
Ansible is an excuse for DevOPS people to say "We don't test our code, but we could if we wanted to."
Numerous other examples exist of tools that "enable" "coders" not to have to know crap except coding, and that
doesn't lend itself to long-term success."

"Coders" don't know crap about coding either. That's what object-oriented programming ensured. Today's coder views his job as gluing together a mile high stack of shit. They don't know anything about the underlying code they depend on and they don't care.

"I've hired (and fired) people who start coding before defining the data structures."

Isn't defining data structures part of coding? But bottom-up programming ensures code before data structures, and bottom-up is the principle on which Agile is built. You and I are in violent agreement here, but the industry disagrees.

Regarding the DevOPS and Ansible comments, I'd say that CI/CD is predicated on a farce that testing can be automated through use of trivially-passed early development tests that, once passed, never again fail. That farce is pushed on the industry to enable automation of bogus management metrics and elimination of the "hard work". CI/CD is a joke, it's an admission that product quality is irrelevant. Sure, Ansible and DevOPS may support that bastardization, but I think corruption of development led to those ideas, not the other way around.

Ansible, from what little I know, is more about what is the best tool for doing a shitty job. Could be wrong, I don't know Ansible but I experienced CI/CD and it was both worthless and at times disastrous. Not as terrible as Agile, though, if anything has contributed to software development as a producer of useless garbage, it's Agile. Fortunately, there's an entire world of programming outside of apps and web development, real programmers still exist in those spaces.

Three recent experiences I had really underline how bad software development has become. First, I had a need to support an SD card on an embedded platform so I needed filesystem support. I selected the most common open source implementation and had to spend weeks fixing the myriad of bugs that made the software completely incapable of preserving the integrity of flash (and this software was considered old and stable). Second was a need for a JSON parser, where I selected the smallest leanest implementation and found it incapable of running in a memory constrained environment because it has mallocs in the inner loop. Third was similar, but was a net socket implementation that also had malloc in the inner loop. It was clear to me that the programmers of these packages were not merely incompetent but they simply did not understand the constraints that would be placed on their own code. This is was modern software has become. Then there was the time when I needed custom bootstrap code and was told to use an open source package. Trouble was, my project was to run to completion within 1 second and the open source project itself took several seconds to start before my software could even gain control. Nevertheless, "management" continuously criticized me for refusing to use the package, up until I left of course. This is what today's "coder" is.

Interestingly, since I'm ranting on an old job, I was once asked to use a library authored by a group member to perform a suitable task. When I reviewed the library, I noticed that functions could not be used efficiently because of the way they were written and how arguments were structured. I made some changes that infuriated the author, and when I was confronted I explained myself and the reasoning. Turns out that though the author claimed to be an expert, he did not know what an l-value or r-value was, and this was C++. Seriously. It was completely impossible to explain to him why his library sucked for its intended use. Also, not a single member of the team had ever heard of GREP before. This is what the schools turn out now.

"Either way, ditch taxes that are specific to "motor vehicle fuels" - they are no longer fair."

They are as fair as they've ever been. Claiming they have become unfair is assuming a purpose.

European countries have always had higher gas taxes, along with higher vehicle taxes. It's not about fairness, it's part of social engineering, a vital function of government.

Gasoline taxes, should get raised. Benefits for EV use should increase. That's why they won't happen, because Republicans.

Taxes should be raised in ways that are fair, easy to implement and hard to cheat. Gas taxes can be cheated but not easily for many people. It's a relatively good tax and we should have more of it, not less. An electric tax would be good too, and we could justify it by claiming it will pay for renewable development, even though we know it would go to line Trump's pockets.

It's not about generating more tax revenue, it's about hurting the right people. It's about playing to the base.

as long as you repay the oil subsidies that you enjoy. And fire subsidies, LOL. You can pay those too, gasoline cars also catch fire