browsingonly

How do you pirate GTA:7 when your console never even gets the whole thing in its own memory? That's the point: piracy as we know it becomes largely impossible. Jailbreaking a console won't help. In fact, the publishers could open source the consoles and allow rooted consoles to play, because who cares?

Kirovs are the size of WWI battleships and exchange the heaviest AShM missiles made with other battlegroups, so yes?

At the end of the day the Navy is seeing Orange Man offer a them a check to build the cruiser they've wanted for decades. They'll finally have the space and power to do all kinds of things they can't pull off on a destroyer hull (even if said "destroyer" is really a cruiser in other clothing). If they have to call it a BBN or whatever to make Trump happy they'll do it.

The SR-71 mission set included trans-attack reconnaissance for SAC, where it would overfly a radiating Europe and USSR perform nuclear bomb damage assessment for follow-on strikes. Aside from nuclear bursts and leftover detritus from the ICBMs etc., it was anticipated to operate in an environment where nuclear-tipped SA-5 and other Soviet SAMs would be bursting here and there. It's EMP-hardened.

The Navy has been pushing for a large cruiser for literally decades now. The Trump-class is that under a different name. We're at the end of what we can cram in a hull that's nominally called a destroyer, especially if you want to host larger hypersonic strike weapons and ABM interceptors, plus the radars to manage the ABM battle.

This has little to do with whether you can afford a GPU and everything to do with whether or not the publisher even makes the properties you want to play available on disc (hint: they won't).

Global access to high speed home Internet is growing not shrinking, there are plenty of ways to creatively manage latency especially when you control the endpoints, and at the end of the day the publishers can effectively force the transition by only making the latest blockbuster games available on the cloud model.

You and I will bitch and moan but the vast majority of consumers (really their parents who pay for them) will be happy their new console is small, light, potentially cheaper, and silent. No more boxes of games to store makes Mom happier. Eventually much of the hardware could be built into televisions from affiliated manufacturers so all you have to do is buy controllers and sign up for the subscription(s).

This is only a fatal flaw to you and me.

If Sony and MSFT decide to go down this route and it's the only way to play blockbuster games, it'll happen whether we like it or not because the market cares far more about playing the latest game than it does maintaining control over its own destiny so to speak. Very few consumers will eschew the Latest Thing and just happily play older games on their own PC (or console) to make a point to the publishers.

If things continue they may be everyone's last console. The next gen might effectively be a video player and controller interface for content rendered outside of your home. No physical games (or saved game backups) at all under this scheme, of course.

Many cameras include microphones that the user has no intention of enabling. These are like that, since they're in a state where no-consent audio recording is illegal.

No audio recordings are made or handed over to anyone. Handing video over to a service provider to do things like weapons detection is not uncommon and not inherently a privacy problem. It's done in hospitals today.

A friend of mine was involved with AVLIS and Pu-AVLIS. There were/are significant counterproliferation concerns with them. I'm not sure if that has anything to do with the lack of major commercialization, but I wouldn't find it shocking if it were true. As I understand it, it's one of those technologies that the US doesn't strictly need, but we really don't want the Iranians (or similar weapons-pursuing state) to have it.

> actual understanding of the pros and cons of union membership

Many of us have worked in $MEGACORPS with substantial union representation among the employees, have seen what it does and how it works in practice, and as a result want nothing to do with it. I wasn't represented due to my job classification, but now due to my firsthand exposure to unions I absolutely never will be by choice.

No way, no how, not ever.

> open competitive programs based on project quality

This will never, ever happen. There will always be bonus points available, even if they're awarded to "conservative"-leaning feel-good attributes like veteran-owned sponsor businesses.

These investments are likely to always fail at their declared purpose. Better to put the money towards free childcare and maybe trying to convince parents to read to their kids.

Your consent is given when you choose to pay for a ticket and attend an event there.

For publicly-funded venues, you may have a point. But if Bimbo's or the Warfield in San Francisco wants to ban someone and it's not for a reason prohibited by law, more power to them. Casinos have been doing this for many years, and generally speaking businesses have the right to refuse business to anyone. Make them post signs if that makes you feel better, but they should be able to ban, say, a person who attacked a patron or staff at the venue (and then was swiftly let out of jail by an activist judge).

> AI in its current form has limited usefulness for most people.

That's not what I'm seeing. My mom always wanted Google to just answer questions, and now ChatGPT can. She uses it enough in her daily life that she bought a subscription.

Yes, she knows it hallucinates and you have to double check everything, but so far she finds a ton of use for it even with those caveats.

Now, I agree that a personal servant robot would get a ton of business. Even at new-car prices, it's still cheaper than a human caretaker/maid/butler/etc. And the maid usually doesn't also mow the lawn on a hot day, while a robot would potentially do all kinds of different things without complaint.

I find it bizarre you imagine a world where immoral or amoral persons are somehow not at fault for their own behavior. When some turd goes into a Walgreen's on Market St. in SF and fills a bag with goods to resell, they aren't doing it because society made them do it. They aren't stealing to feed themselves or their kids. They're doing it simply because they can and they don't find anything wrong with it.

The drug users stealing copper can only be helped if they truly want the help. A great many are not ready for that help yet. As San Francisco has amply shown, no amount of money poured into the existing homeless industrial complex will change that fact.

That's laughably false propaganda. Maybe one person one time stole something for jail health care, but the hundreds of thousands of other shoplifters do it for other reasons, ranging from being unable or unwilling to control their childish I-want-that impulses to being part of organized crime rings.

To pretend shoplifting at its core stems from not having socialized health care is the height of chicanery.