> The only telecom in America to resist turning on a domestic eavesdropping firehose tap for the government, was pounded to the edge of bankruptcy.
How so? There was no mention of the government taking action against the company to cause the company to fail. If a company is failing without government contracts, that is on them and not the government.
Or maybe you are just blind to the realities of normal people. Most people are not hell-bent on burning fossil fuels. There are numerous valid reasons for people to continue to choose ICE. I want an EV. I want to dump every piece of outdoor equipment with an ICE for something with an electric motor. I very much prefer the pieces I have switched to electric. I've been wanting to make the switch for years. It just does not make sense for me at this time.
> It only takes a friend to send a photo or meme through WhatsApp to get you in trouble.
Does it? The particular meme which was claimed to be the issue is something the administration and people on the right enjoy. I can't see anyone on the side of the administration being vindictive for having that meme.
> Meanwhile, I'm going to download the app right now. Thanks, Streisand effect!
You know they could be going for the Streisand effect. I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to add false incidents to reduce the effectiveness of the app. Nothing will get those people riled up like a court ruling in favor of the app. In the end, it could work to the administration's favor to have the app up and running. Nothing like acting all offended in public then celebrating privately as unnecessary fear and confusion sets in with false reports.
Bureaucrats write what falls under the CFR. Congress writes the US Code. Unless there is something in the US Code which specifies the period in which the licensee must have 50% of the satellites in place, the bureaucrats can change the rules in the CFR. Somehow I doubt Congress was that detailed. They likely just passed the buck to let the bureaucrats specify the details.
> after all, it will turn your $1M into $2.5M, no?
Um, no. The graphic intends to show money spent by all parties on housing. The original party pays $1M and receives $300k for the plots of land. The subplot parties then spend $500k to build houses. There is nothing magically turning a $1M home into multiple homes without additional capital.
> if it's a 2.5x investment cheat code for the fastest actors
It isn't a 2.5x investment cheat code. You're spending $1M for the original home. You're spending $500k on the construction of each new home. That's $2.5M invested. They would need to sell each house for more than $1.5M each for a "2.5x investment cheat code". If the original house cost $1M, how are they going to sell 4 houses with less land at a higher asking price? Even if they somehow managed that, do you honestly think sellers in the area aren't going to catch on?
I think you missed the actual point of the graphic. It is to point out that the laws enable cheaper housing. Instead of people having to pay $1M for a single home, you're enabling 4 homes at $700k or less each.
Quoting the whole bloody thing is meaningless when the added bit adds nothing to the context. Nothing about the "added context" says they won't sell the data. If anything it just improves the case that they are going to sell the data.
In the US, Metronet uses CGNAT. There's another local ISP which uses it. They use it because they're small, growing, and cannot afford enough v4 IPs. They also have no plan to switch to IPv6.
How many developer jobs are due to startups? I can't imagine enough to really affect the job market all that much. There's a lot of people out there looking.
>> It may not be caused by AI, but it is going to affect hiring numbers from now on.
> That remains to be seen. I can say with high confidence that we did not have tech that was capable of reducing the need for engineers from 2022 to 2024. It's hard to predict the future.
If I can run some small models locally which helps me significantly right now, I don't really think it is hard to make the jump to needing fewer engineers overall. I've seen people paying for the big models do even more.
> If anything, AI hype is actually helping keep many of us employed.
AI is also going to keep many of us unemployed. I'm running a small version of Deepseek R1 locally and it does an extremely good job of predicting of where I'm going in a number of situations. I went to pull out some code into another function. As soon as I finished typing the name of the new function, it immediately suggested the exact code I was planning to move into the new function. All I had to do was hit tab. I didn't have to do the copy and paste myself. This was thirty lines of code and it chose the correct starting line and ending line.
> * The Section 174 changes went into effect, requiring all software to be expensed as R&D, which means it can't be deducted from profits directly and instead has to be amortized over 5 years [0].
I get the short term initial issue. I don't see why it would be an issue to stick current level of staffing until it normalizes 5 years later. I'm not sure this was ever a major issue. It just seems like a convenient excuse to cover up something else.
Interest rates are obviously definitely an issue.
> this is not caused by AI.
It may not be caused by AI, but it is going to affect hiring numbers from now on.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201020184623/https://www.anand...