> A server like Marvel Rivals has literally millions of users. Players join that discord to socialize with all of those players and build a community around the game.
That is totally true, but is that server really going to be one with NSFW content or channels? Those huge servers are great spaces, but every one I've been on is fully functional if you are on a "teen account" without doing ID/Age verification.
> But then how would we waste so many societal resources letting investors profit from basic infrastructure?
That, and Millenarian Christians would object to its being a required "mark of the beast." That bit from Revelations has held us back for quite a while.
You can't easily copy and paste from a printout into AI. Sure, you can track down the reading yourself online, and then copy and paste in, but not during class, and not without some effort.
I have an older X, and I'm kind of happy that the AP and Infotainment hardware in it is largely deprecated, and they are unlikely to be able to shove Grok crap into it. It will stay largely the same for the life of the car.
Slander and libel laws are complicated, but she should have a pretty good case:
- The defendant knew or should have know that he or she was making an untrue or defamatory statement about you. (Yes, they edited the photo.)
- The false statement must clearly identify you. (It's a clear photo.)
- The defendant must have spread the false information to at least one third party who is not the target. For a libel case, they must do so in print, and for a slander case, they must do so verbally. (They posted it on Social Media.)
- The false statement must have damaged your character in some way. (Probably? This is the hardest one, but it's reasonable that the message that a "Far-Left" agitator would cry when arrested, rather than being stoic and strong could cause damage to her reputation or character.
IANAL but she could also have a good case that it will be impossible for her to get a fair trial.
Some potential jurors will have seen these doctored photos. With the prosecution putting out obviously false info then it calls into question their credibility and any other evidence presented at trial.
Federal government can't be sued for defamation. "Federal sovereign immunity" basically says the government can't be sued unless it agrees to waive the immunity, and it doesn't for defamation cases.
Battery swap was and remains really risky for anyone doing it. You're taking a $10k asset, and swapping it for another $10k asset of unknown provenance. Does anyone really want to be in a situation where they purchase a new Tesla with a brand new, max-range battery pack, then swap it once on a road trip and get one that's been used for 300k miles and is at 75% of original capacity?
The bigger risk is you need a standard battery pack. Sure you can put 3 in a truck or something, but you lose all the space that a standard battery size wouldn't fit but you can cram a cell in. Electric car design is about stuffing batteries where there is space - you need a lot of cells, but the individual cells are small.
As long as you can always swap your battery again I don't see the problem
As long as the average battery health in the system is like 90% and the minimum is say 80% why would you care if you're getting a new battery every few days?
If anything it removes a big cause of depreciation from your car
That is fine if you always are swapping. However if you normally charge at home that becomes a big deal - if your current battery wears out/fails because it has 500,000k miles on it are you out a new one? Do you pay for the tow to get to a swap station? Again, if everyone always swapped this would be easy to amortize and not a problem but the mixed use.
Of course this isn't a new problem. I know people who own their own welding gas tank - but they always swap the tank out. The place they swap at somehow handles when the tank needs to be re-certified - and people don't ask questions.
In some mysterious future where swapping EV batteries during a road trip is a normal activity, then the battery packs won't be living in a vacuum -- their status can be known. Whether it is known by reading the pack's own electronics, by status reports from connected vehicles and charging stations, by direct measurement, or by some combination of these things: The status is knowable. It doesn't have to be a big ball of mystery.
How much value the marketplace finds in this health status is a different question. And this question is one that we cannot yet know the answer to -- this is not a reality that we presently live in.
We can speculate about how that potential future may be shaped, but that kind of speculation is kind of meritless since that version of the future may never actually happen (and at the present, it sure does seem very unlikely to happen any time soon).
If this is the hidden master server that only the mirrors talk to, then it's redundancy is largely irrelevant. Yes, if it's down, new packages can't be uploaded, but that doesn't affect downloads at all. We also know nothing about the backup setup they have.
A lot depends on the threat model they're operating under. If state-level actors and supply chain attacks are the primary threats, they may be better off having their system under the control of a few trusted contributors versus a large corporation that they have little to no influence over.
Even if it's just the build server, it's really hard to defend just having 1 physical server for a project that aspires to be a core part of the software distribution infrastructure for thousands of users.
The build server going down means that no one's app can be updated, even for critical security updates.
For something that important, they should aspire to 99.999% ("five nines of") reliability. With a single physical server, achieving five nines over a long period of time usually means that you were both lucky (no hardware failures other than redundant storage) and probably irresponsible (applied kernel updates infrequently - even if only on the hypervisor level).
Now... 2 servers in 2 different basements? That could achieve five nines ;)
Which tuition are you referring to? Nameplate tuition is like the sticker price on a new car; few to no people pay it. Net tuition is the number that actually matters, and it's been largely flat the last 8 years.
I don't know the figures for large universities, but at the small liberal arts college I graduated from and the one I've worked at for the last 15 years, the average figure for "full pay" students—which, as the name suggests, is the students who pay, or whose families pay, the full sticker price, either directly or through loans—has generally been between 46% and 53%.
Now, if you have figures showing that what you claim is true on the whole across all of US higher education, please, by all means, post the links. I'm genuinely interested to know just how different it is with the larger universities.
So you're saying academics use the same opaque market practices as, e.g. health insurance? Yeah all the more reasons to cut funding. If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear with transparency.
You seem to have no interest in transparance or understanding, but answer everything with "cut the universities" no matter what.
If differential pricing based on ability to pay is a reason to destroy something, then we had better destroy 90% of B2B. But it's not a reason, you're just parroting the same desired end result no matter what is actually said about universities.
It's going to get worse, ADA Title II updates require that by April 2026 all PDFs and documents be used by UCB be accessible to the WCAG 2.1 AA standard. I expect a lot of third-party content currently hosted on University of California websites will go away.
reply