The video is interesting (and the main guy does lots of cool road vids), but the Pi thing is just odd.

Twitter used to have lots of moving parts, and money flowed from various ads and placements, and that was much more complex then I think people appreciate. With their new head twit, they destroyed most of their ad revenue stream and are now hyping paying for APIs and posting privileges, and it shows.

My main irritation is that people say it "works fine", when lots of crap is broken all over, and it now has regular outages. They have shipped like ONE feature that was mostly done earlier since the takeover.

Most businesses just want things to work; their software/hardware costs are often rounding errors when amortized over their lifetime. I'm sympathetic to users who have paid for programs wanting to run them forever, but software businesses have to make money and sell new versions, so they add new features and follow the OS upgrades. It's hard for businesses to support older software or a big diversity of versions; it's why companies mandate a standard and try to enforce it.

With Microsoft, they are making millions on OS and related basic programs, and so can afford to support things for a long time. With OSS like Linux, there is less funding and less people who are interested in running old versions. As someone who has had to keep some software up to date on Linux, it can sometimes be more of a pain to update a package (because of dependencies) them to just recompile the thing from source. The 5 years that LTS releases get are good for 2 average commercial update cycles, which I think is reasonable. Beyond that, people's skills are going to be out of date.

They had a 386 version as well, but went all in on getting X-windows and graphics working, and ignored TCP/networking just as the Internet started to gain a lot of traction. Still an interesting OS to look at!

We figured out how to create a SUID shell, so we could get back to root even after we head logged out. Poking a few bytes would have been more interesting!

But, it seems that FUD about what it is capable of is still actively here, which is good to know. With frameworks and libraries, there is a 0% chance you don't have SOME update for your Windows app in a couple years, forget 5.

Now, there are lots of headwinds against Linux -- Windows is a known quantity, everyone knows the MS Office suite, people hate change and don't want to learn new stuff.

But to pretend that Linux is a house of cards because there are sometimes issues that cause troubles is not being honest. Even Windows can have big issues, or have we forgotten the CrowdStrike outage earlier this year?

All OSes have always had issues; that's why all of them have patches and updates.

Nowadays all software is built on libraries and frameworks, and they have security issues and even just bugs, and you want to get those fixes. If you want to run 5+ year old software, you can now do it natively in a VM in almost any computer; so why does my shiny new OS have to run ancient binaries again?

I'd argue that OS/2 2.x was pretty much a ground-up re-write, as OS/2 1.x had been written for 16-bit 286 protected mode and not the 32-bit 386 protected mode which the next version targeted. IBM did insist that the new version run all of the 1.x 16 bit stuff, but like DOS and Win 3.x mode this was done through some virtualization if memory serves.

The big hurdle OS/2 faced was being memory hungry at a time when memory prices were still high and when the installed base had less then half of the required amount by default.

The big issue that no one is mentioning is that OS/2 needed 8MB of RAM to run decently, preferably more, but this was when most machines were 2-4MB and extra RAM was still a big cost.

Now if Synapse had created individual accounts for the Yotta depositors, we wouldn't be talking now. But what happened was Synapse had a few account(s) for Yotta and a bit of a records gap, which it seems is making it hard to tie Yotta depositors to their money. What's unclear is if this is a Synapse issue, a Yotta issue or something else.

But the fact that there is this accounting issue shows that there is a gap in how FinTechs are actually managing cash flows, to the risk and detriment of their customers/depositors.

But it seems that it was more positioned as "a safe investment with okay returns and a lottery chance at winning above average returns". Gamblers don't need to know about FDIC insurance and the like.

There was shady goings on that wasn't clear to depositors -- what isn't clear is WHERE that shadiness was happening, but that doesn't mean they "got what was coming to them".

And these stats hold for liberals as well; they feel their outlet isn't the "MSM", but that Fox is and is untrustworthy.

Since the job of news is now to sell ads and not tell the truth, a lot of "supporters" only hear what their side wants them to hear, and not the facts.

The real problem of course is that each party has different policies; but if we as citizens don't agree on the facts and problems facing us, then there is no way to evaluate the strength of the policies against the problems.

To pick up your McD's analogy, I'm sure they did focus groups and test runs to gauge interest and build the product up. If memory serves, they did this in the context of many low-end buffets adding a salad bar and "healthier" alternatives becoming available. I think they added this option as popularity of salads started to decline. I'm sure many people bought them, but it wasn't profitable enough so they discontinued it, in favor of other healthy options.

Now, to pivot back to news, they used to be awash in print ads, both classified and throughout the copy pages, which subsidized their operations a great deal. There are lots of demand for news, but the challenge is how you pay for it. I think it would have been great if the big players (FB, Google) had set up revenue shares with legit outlets; but they don't want to share their $$ pie so we are all worse off.

But I can understand it from the teacher's perspective too; They have 30 kids, no extra budget and few resources. They have 20 or so average kids, and a handful of stragglers and a handful of people out in front, and are trying to meet ALL of their needs. Any of those three groups could use up all the time on a specific topic, so you end up stealing some time from one to deal with the others. If there are good monitoring from EdTech software it can help, but lots of teachers are not super techie so things have to be approachable.

It's definitely a space with more nuance and certainly more potential.

To me, a lot of the companies in the space seem to be more concerned with how to maximize dollars sent to them and not as much about how things are improving or better with technology. Tech should be a tool to help the learning, it doesn't have to be each and every part, and I feel like the ultimate goal of at least some of the companies was to create an all-in-one solution for every problem.

But that might have meant software and support costs, and can't have that.

I too am glad they are remembered.

I'm sensing some contradiction in that.

Pricing and packaging parts in a way that ensures its cheaper to buy a different phone is the opposite of a free market. Breaking your screen or wearing out your battery shouldn't mean you have to replace both, but it does if you own a Samsung and want genuine Samsung parts.

Did this approach get disclosed when consumers bought the phones, or only when something happened?