Elon Musk is a truly proficient capitalist. Great at creating capital. So, in that sense, no he is not overrated. There is nothing really subjective about capital — you either have it or you don't. And despite all the warning signals, people still heavily invest in his ventures.

But is he overrated as a leader, as a visionary, as a genius — the subjective measures. I'd argue, yes. Doesn't take a genius to create capital. As he's done nothing artistic or altruistic for us to debate the merits of his life, I can't imagine what other criteria he can be evaluated upon.

(A few people voting more than once is unlikely to change the results of an election. If enough fraud is detected to impact the results, they'll run a new election.)

You have to be registered and must vote within your electorate, so your name appears on a certified list for that electorate and each voting location has that list. When you vote, they strike your name from the list.

After the election, the lists from these locations are compared. Anyone who votes twice has their name struck twice, and are investigated for electoral fraud.

Whether people know if you voted or not is immaterial, as voting is mandatory in Australia.

Works pretty well for a paper system.

1. They relate to alleged harm caused by decisions and policies made centrally by Dyson UK companies and personnel

2. There was substantial risk that they would not be able to access justice in the Malaysian courts

Both seem reasonable. The UK personnel may have engaged in an activity they knew were illegal. Foreign citizen can generally sue in another country, if they must establish that the court has jurisdiction over the matter -- which they seem to have done.

If anything, it should make the anti-slavery mandates of manufacturers, particularly fashion, sit up straight.

(With Internet Explorer's deprecation, iOS is now the browser which takes the most time for work-arounds and fixes. As you say, it is not ever-green like most modern browsers and its support for modern standards can break between releases. CSS nesting appears to be better supported since 17.2 back in 2023, but I've not tested it specifically, because well, Sass)

(Hard to remember the names from 20 years ago, but that one certainly sticks out.)

I don't think I ever properly played Duke 3D until recently, picking up the "Cursed Randy Version" version on Switch. But as a kid I was hooked on the level editor (and pixelated nudity.) Duke 3D's custom maps scene never eclipsed the popularity and duration of Doom or Quake, but there were some fantastic creations that really stirred the imagination and kept me in that editor for hours.

(There is also a port of the Duke Nukem 64 version, which whilst almost identical, does have a few interesting variations which makes it worth the try for a series fan.)

But I would wager long-term large-scale changes to investment/spend is unlikely, especially if the mid-terms swing blue.

Their goal might be be to acquire, dramatically cut costs, and then run the product for as long as they can at a profit before breaking it down and selling it off (or hope for a buyout by a bigger player.) But that wouldn't make sense — customers of a depreciating SaaS product surely churn after a 1-3 years, so they wouldn't make enough of a return from their existing customers to justify the investment...

All of this meant the learning-curve on how to participate was high, and this spurred gate-keeping and over-zealous moderation. High-quality but out-of-date information was preferred over lower-quality but more recent updates. When combined with the rapid shifts brought on with mobile development and web frameworks, the answers could easily get out-of-date months after being answered.

I remember a time when StackOverflow dominated every search query. Now we're seeing searches take you to a dedicated forum/discussion board, which feels more appropriate for the current state of the industry.

AI would need to 1. perform better than a person in a particular role, and 2. do so cheaper than their total cost, and 3. do so with fewer mistakes and reduced liability.

Humans are objectively quite cheap. In fact for the output of a single human, we're the cheapest we've ever been in history (particularly in relation to the cost of the investment in AI and the kind of roles AI would be 'replacing.')

If there is any economic shifts, it will be increases in per person efficiency, requiring a smaller workforce. I don't see that changing significantly in the next 5-10 years.