Which is what makes it so humiliating.

He may not have investors in the exact sense a public company does, but he absolutely has investors (or more properly creditors) who helped him finance the purchase and they want their cut.

True, but Musk's changes have been digging the hole a lot deeper a lot faster.

It would require a miracle for that not to be the case. Musk spent a pile on the purchase and his entire vision for the platform was essentially rolling back everything Twitter did to make themselves amenable to major sponsors.

Sure, if you want to be hopping on long-haul flights on a regular basis, often with short notice.

What they need from you is somewhat subjective and their prerogative as well as subject to change over time.

Perhaps I should have said require.

This is the elephant in the room with remote work I think a lot of people don't get. Even with fully remote positions, they generally need you to be able to turn up to a physical site when needed, even if that's once in a great while.

I personally know more than one person who took the "now I can live anywhere" thing seriously and now are stuck with more long haul business trips than they bargained for.

Kingdom of Heaven: I like both versions of the film more than most, but the director's cut essentially adds another entire act to the middle of the film which makes a lot of the plot points make far more sense.

I'm no expert, but it seems as though the broader the bill, the more exposed it would be to legal challenges.

I would love that, but I doubt it. As great of a director as PTA is, he seems about the last guy a studio would tap to helm a major franchise picture.

Yeah, but there are people who scan those ESPN channels all day. I just spent Thanksgiving with some of them.

Sure, but the fees for internet alone are not nearly as egregious as those associated with their cable service.

Exactly. That's such a ridiculous standard.

Not as much as bringing true FSD, a genuinely new technology, to the market would be.

So are most people, but that's pretty much my point. A lot of the potential market for FSD vehicles are people for whom the current status quo is not working. Take that away and it's just glorified cruise control.

Depends on how you mean. The problem isn't self-driving ability per se, but the standard of proficiency. The technology is already there to produce an FSD car, just not one capable of maintaining anything near the level of safety standard we'd require. It's entirely possible at some point, somewhere FSD cars will simply be declared "good enough" even if there are still a lot of bugs. (not saying that would necessarily be a good thing, but it's something I could see happening).

Which would be a crime. People may do that, but then it's up to the law to find them and hold them accountable, just like any other dangerous or improper violation of traffic or any other laws.

That strikes me as the same as saying because some dumb teens throw boulders off of overpasses and kill people we shouldn't have overpasses.

That's a question for the law to settle, but it raises the question of whether it's a fair or reasonable standard to assume that self-driving cars will never have accidents.

Human drivers cause a ton of accidents, but we all more or less accept that a certain amount of them is just a reality of having a large number of drivers on the road. The elephant in the room is that self-driving cars will never have an absolutely perfect operational record either.

I think there's a political dimension as well.

Part of the problem is that self-driving cars are expected to have a perfect operational record for liability purposes, but that's an unrealistically high standard.

Something like legislation that says operational standards at the level of the average human driver are "good enough" (and maybe even indemnifying companies to some extent) could probably help, though it would probably be controversial for understandable reasons. In any event, it's no more than has been done for other industries.

Sure, but the problem is a lot of the expected utility of self-driving cars centered on their ability to transport those who don't/can't drive, and highway-only pretty much ends that.

Han doesn't dispute the fact that the Jedi exist, he just doesn't particularly believe in...whatever their belief system is. Plenty of people say similar things about real-world religions all the time.

Indiana Jones is especially intriguing considering it seems to confirm both the Judeo-Christian god and Hindu deities as being equally real.

FWIW a lot of digital music can remove things that are no longer licensed when you synch your device.

Put simply, because when you buy a copy of a movie, you're not actually legally buying the copy but a license to view it. That's pretty much moot when it comes to a physical copy, but in the digital era, the rubber is meeting the road in that respect.

I'm a strong proponent of work from home (as a disabled person, it could be the biggest shift in employment accessibility in my lifetime), but I do think that some people don't realize that work is work, and the expectations are the same whether in the office or remote.