You get a lot of people with a lot of different views some of which are just fucking stupid and they're only there because the other side wants to murder them.

The Republican party is basically composed of three groups. You've got the racists, you've got the religious lunatics and you have the ultra wealthy who want to screw us all over. That makes them a lot more cohesive and it's less obvious when there is corruption because being corrupt doesn't conflict with the goals of any of those three groups.

The Democrat party is everybody else. That's because America has first passed the post winner take all voting and that means you've got two parties because if you don't you just have one party and a bunch of small parties that keep losing elections.

In the Democrat party when the party is in good shape this kind of corruption is irrelevant because it doesn't make it very far. You'll notice that it's the Democrat party machine in San Francisco that's all in but they're not really going to be able to do much of anything at a state level let alone in national level by themselves. The corrupt elements of the democratic party will partner with the entire Republican party to screw you over.

But if you took out the Republican party the corrupt elements of the democratic party would be pretty fucking weak. It is only by crossing the aisle that they become a problem. This is how you get fuckers like Kirsten Sinema and Fetterment. And they are a problem only because so many people vote Republican that the Democrats have weak majorities if they ever get one.

Too long didn't read, stop voting Republican and the problem solves itself

I'm still impressed that the Teams web client can't edit a message with an emoji in it without messing up the keyboard controls and often corrupting the message and losing data. It's had this bug for years. It's literally a messaging app where you can't reliably send messages.

You have to put up with shitty software for at least 5 or 10 years while your guys catch up.

As crappy as Windows 11 is Teams mostly works now. Microsoft kept getting their asses handed to them by other software companies and because they have limitless money from the office and windows monopolies they can just keep plugging away until they get it which they did.

Other software is still better but teams has finally achieved good enough. And good enough is always good enough.

When you start I new a software package out it is not going to be good enough. So you are the pour money into it until it is or you just force everybody to use it until eventually it gets fixed.

Or you stop using it and you go back to the Monopoly from a nation that is rapidly becoming fascist and hostile to your Nation...

The GP is correct, and you're misinterpreting the financial filing.

The industry widely acknowledges that SpaceX's economics are lucrative. Their marginal cost is an est. $15-25m/flight, vs. a typical commercial contract price of ~$65M and a NASA contract price of ~$100-150M. The small (as a percentage) GAAP operating loss on the launch segment is driven by two factors:

1) Starship development. That falls under the launch segment. Starship development is draining an insane amount of money (~$3B/yr), while earning zero revenue.

2) Internal launches. 3/4ths of Falcon launches are to launch Starlink. This books zero revenue for SpaceX launch services.

The fact that the loss is only ~$1/2B despite these massive leaches on profitability is specifically because Falcon launches are so profitable.

As for your claim that Starlink is "only making money due to free launches", no. Starlink generated $11,4B with $4,4B GAAP in 2025. Merely sum the Starlink GAAP profit and the launch GAAP loss and you'll see nearly $4B in GAAP profit, and that's including the huge drain caused by Starship development costing $3B/yr. Without Starship, the two combined would be turning nearly $7B GAAP profit.

The main leach in corporate profitability has nothing to do with space: it's xAI. They had an operating loss of $6,36B in 2025.

To be clear, it needs to get safely to orbit to be seen as reliable for launches. It doesn't need to make it back safely.

I'll take Things That Never Happened for $1000, Ken.

Meanwhile in reality:

1) It was not a case of "WorldVu approached SpaceX looking to purchase rocket launches". Musk and Wyler had been working through all of 2014 on a joint venture. They explored building a joint satellite manufacturing facility and were scouting locations in Florida and Colorado. The talks broke down (Wyler thought Musk's Starlink plan was too ambitious, Musk thought Wyler's wasn't ambitious enough (too expensive satellites, too primitive/conservative tech, too small in number); SpaceX also thought Wyler wanted too much equity ) and each went their own way - SpaceX in-house, WorldVu partnering with Virgin Group and Qualcomm. The former succeeded massively.

2) NEITHER SpaceX nor WorldVu came up with the idea; it was well known in the space industry for decades. It had already had startups try, starting with Teledesic (backed by Gates) in the 1990s. Other smaller LEO constellations like Iridium and Globalstar were already operational. The main scale and price limitations were launch costs, which weren't resolved until the Falcon in the 2010s.

3) SpaceX was already eyeing satellite communications before the JV with WorldVu.. As early as 2004, they hired Larry Williams (of Teledesic) and bought a 10% stake in Surrey Satellite Technology, specifically to explore space-based internet concepts. What WorldVu brought to the table wasn't "the idea of satellite constellations" at all: they owned priority spectrum rights. *That* is what SpaceX wanted from the JV. Not "OMG, this customer has a brilliant idea for a satellite constellation that we never thought of!!!" Wyler had bought Ku-band spectrum from the ITU that was originally allocated to a different defunct 1990s venture, SkyBridge.

Is this what Claude told you to put in your comment?

He said, while failing to understand that it's for controlling our use of our computers. Eyeroll all day.

If the user has no control over it, then it's for the control of the user.

The idea as presented as being in the user's benefit is that the user can control it, but applications cannot.

Is it holding it between the index and middle fingers? "Got your gene! I got your gene!"

This version has a dumber headline, so it's like a whole new story! Three people didn't like it!

You're interpreting it in the context of typing "sudo" on the command-line granting a one-time permission. And the original statement from Apple (after correcting the "every -> very" error in the summary) makes it clear that this is *not* what is being proposed, so if that was the original poster's intent, then it was incorrect.

The way I interpreted the original sentence — "They're going to make it like sudo where when you give permission to a program to write protected files once it has it forever after" — is that they're going to make it like the sudoers file, where you edit it to grant permission to a program to do something, and it permanently has the right to do that... which is exactly what happens when you grant full disk permission, just with a dialog box instead of editing a file.

That said, I'm not sure if that's how the original statement was intended to be interpreted. It was a bit confusing. :-)

Nope. And this is why I object to the phrase "censorship is bad". *Unreasonable* censorship is bad. But not all restraint on speech is bad.

No, you're confusing the definition of censorship with what restraints on free speech are constitutional. You're defining the term based on legality in a specific jurisdiction. If you applied the same standard with a different jurisdiction — say what can legally be spoken in Iran — you would get a very different definition. This is why you cannot define censorship based on a specific legal standard. It must be defined in the abstract.

The general definition is that censorship is the suppression of expression by an authority. That expression could be a constitutionally protected idea, or it could be an advertisement for Taco Bell. It's still expression, and blocking it is still censorship.

And again, you're using the U.S. definition of free speech to define censorship. These things are not synonymous. Nobody is talking about whether someone should have to listen to you. The fact that someone shut you up is still censorship. It may be *constitutionally allowable* censorship. It may even be *entirely* *reasonable* censorship. But it is still censorship.

Not all censorship is bad. Restraints on speech based on time, place, and manner restrictions can be entirely reasonable. They are still, at least in a purely abstract way, a form of censorship. Restraints on speech where your speech costs someone else money can also be entirely reasonable (e.g. spam, robodialers, etc.). But those decisions still represent censorship in the abstract. We simply choose to say that those types of restraints on speech are reasonable and necessary for a functioning society.

It's all about balancing rights — your right to swing your fist ends when it meets my nose, and all that. Censorship is generally justifiable when exercising your right to speech has the effect of violating someone else's rights. For example, if you call for violence and that violence happens, you can get thrown in jail, and your rights to free speech can be massively curtailed. This is, however, still censorship in a purely abstract sense.

The answer is no. Moving up the work hours would mean fewer work hours available. Americans are pushing 50 hours a week on average. You have to work longer hours because pay had keeps going down but rent keeps going up.

The only option is to keep increasing your productivity and hope you get enough to keep your head just barely above water.

If you want to do away with daylight savings time you're going to have to do away with our current anarco capitalist system. You can't have a few nice things in a terrible world. You are going to have all the nice things or you have none of the nice things.