I got a Switch 2 while visiting Australia in mid-June, where stock was fairly available -- I was able to walk into Canberra Centre mall and get one with no reservation or wait. It's still out of stock near me in the US. I would guess that's an effect of tariffs.

And I don't understand the analogy with trading card games. My kids used to be into Magic, but those sets were always readily available at list price. Specific rare cards are expensive, but there's nothing analogous to that in video game sales -- paid loot boxes and gacha games seem out of vogue.

Yes, yes, the AC was not completely specific about the question.

When does private party A doing something illegal mean the government can fairly compel private party B to take some non-emergency action?

People say that a lot, but where I work, utility closets are locked. People need to (depending on the closet) know a combination, have the right badge, or have a physical key. And company policy is to escort people without badges to security.

This was unauthorized hardware running the attacker's choice of OS. It was not part of the bank's normal system, running their usual security tools, or with bank-managed accounts -- detecting unauthorized network traffic is a proactive detection mechanism for things like that. On the other hand, why they don't disable and lock down ports on their network switches is a good question.

That's still a long way from unilateral, though, even if we look narrowly at the IaaS market.

There are two market leaders, and the regulator describes this as a "unilateral" situation. Together they maybe serve 40% of the market, and even adding the third biggest seller -- who also happens to dominate online search and wants to capture cloud computing business -- doesn't get above 50% of the market.

Governments are just about the only unilateral movers in this space.

The law was introduced two months ago and currently has a 12% chance of passing, according to https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.govtrack.us%2Fcongre... . It was referred to a committee for the next action -- and a common outcome is that bills "die in committee".

Meanwhile, Nvidia and AMD are already expecting export licenses: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2025%2F07%2F15...

That's the entire idea, yes -- as long as everyone else gets the same free stage, megaphone and promotion. That's why Section 230 is called "the 26 words that created the Internet".

And you didn't answer the question, apparently because you don't want to admit that you support making YouTube liable whenever anyone posts a video that offends a mayor or police chief in East Kerblickistan. You just launched invective against a statute. How brave!

Specifically what censorship do you hide behind the word "responsible"? In the US, we have something called Section 230 that prevents these platforms from being held responsible for what third parties say; we think those third parties are the ones who should be held responsible.

Similar things happen in other places, but Florida has a "Sunshine Law" that means these kinds of police reports are visible to the general public.

Er, no. Gizmodo's description (quoted in TFS) of the research findings is what is thoroughly wrong. The prediction in physics is that the metal would undergo a phase change, not "blow up". Colloquially, "blow up" generally means some form of combustion, usually detonation but arguably deflagration. Phase changes are not combustion and certainly not detonation. (Explosive boiling is a thing, but apparently not part of this research.)

As TFS mentions, the choice of 10,000 is probably 50% too high: morbidity reductions seem to plateau around 7,000 steps (3500 paces, which some people would spell "passes") per day, which is more like 6 km. Slashdotters are, like you, known for either not reading TFS or not applying common sense before commenting.

Both steps/paces and distance are only rough approximations for an exercise goal: jogging, and moreso running, usually means fewer steps per distance, and steps per minute does not change much from "brisk walk" to the low end of "run" even though cardiovascular benefit per minute goes up a lot. Probably a better value is "met-minutes", from multiplying the metabolic equivalents of exercise (reflecting intensity) by duration: aim for at least 500 met-minutes per week. Someone under 50 in good shape can easily achieve that in a day[1]: say, 11.1 METs (a not very fast run) for 45 minutes.

[1]- Exercise should be spread out over 3 to 5 days per week so you don't de-train between sessions. One might not be able to reach or maintain that level of fitness with just one exercise session per week.

I am on the side of Phillip J Fry: I am shocked. Shocked! Well, not that shocked. (... that Slashdot only quotes someone getting the facts largely wrong.)

You are way overthinking it. Japanese numbers use powers of ten up to 10,000 and then switch to powers of 10,000. 1,000,000 is called "100 man" (a hundred 10,000-unit counts) and the next largest value with its own name is 100,000,000 (one "oku"). That's why they settled on 10,000 as the nice round number.

There is a hyperlink to the actual journal paper, which makes it clear that they're referring to an "inverse" form of something called Kauzmann's paradox, which is an unresolved question about the behavior of supercooled liquids as they are cooled further and their entropy approaches that of a solid. Kauznann hypothesized that these liquids would always freeze before that point.

So, TFS is approximately right if you ignore the bits about it being a renowned physics model, about it being about heating things up, about it being a statement about temperature, about the result of the "energy catastrophe" (blowing up is never the predicted outcome), and about whether this paper addresses the classical model/paradox or a related but different question. I personally would call the TFS "thoroughly wrong" at that point, but maybe I'm being too picky.