Skip to content

We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink

Technology
496 196 1.8k
  • 93 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    U
    Still, a 2025 University of Arizona study that interviewed farmers and government officials in Pinal County, Arizona, found that a number of them questioned agrivoltaics’ compatibility with large-scale agriculture. “I think it’s a great idea, but the only thing … it wouldn’t be cost-efficient … everything now with labor and cost of everything, fuel, tractors, it almost has to be super big … to do as much with as least amount of people as possible,” one farmer stated. Many farmers are also leery of solar, worrying that agrivoltaics could take working farmland out of use, affect their current operations or deteriorate soils. Those fears have been amplified by larger utility-scale initiatives, like Ohio’s planned Oak Run Solar Project, an 800 megawatt project that will include 300 megawatts of battery storage, 4,000 acres of crops and 1,000 grazing sheep in what will be the country’s largest agrivoltaics endeavor to date. Opponents of the project worry about its visual impacts and the potential loss of farmland.
  • 568 Stimmen
    127 Beiträge
    600 Aufrufe
    T
    They also bundle twice as much crapware
  • 13 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    23 Aufrufe
    tal@lemmy.todayT
    While details of the Pentagon's plan remain secret, the White House proposal would commit $277 million in funding to kick off a new program called "pLEO SATCOM" or "MILNET." Please do not call it "MILNET". That term's already been taken. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MILNET In computer networking, MILNET (fully Military Network) was the name given to the part of the ARPANET internetwork designated for unclassified United States Department of Defense traffic.[1][2]
  • www2025

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 42 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    57 Aufrufe
    F
    I imagine not, though I haven't looked into it.
  • 363 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    18 Aufrufe
    A
    No I don't think there really were many so your point is valid But the law works like that, things are in a grey area or in limbo until they are defined into law. That means the new law can be written to either protect consumer privacy, or make it legal to the letter to rape consumer privacy like this bill, or some weird inbetween where some shady stuff is still explicitly allowed but in general consumers are protected in specific ways from specific privacy abuses This bill being the second option is bad because typically when laws are written it then takes a loooong time to reverse them
  • Apple sued by shareholders for allegedly overstating AI progress

    Technology technology
    75
    500 Stimmen
    75 Beiträge
    366 Aufrufe
    finishingdutch@lemmy.worldF
    For this comment, I want to be absolutely clear that I do not give a shit about AI, and that it in no way factored into my decision to buy this iPhone 16 Pro Max. With that disclaimer out of the way: I very much look forward to a class action lawsuit. Apple advertised specific features as coming ‘very soon’ and gave short timeframes when asked directly. And they basically did not deliver on those advertising promises. Basically, I think there’s a good case to be made here that Apple knowingly engaged in false advertising in order to sell a phone that otherwise would not have sold as well. Those promised AI features WERE a deciding factor for a lot of people to upgrade to an iPhone 16. So, I’ll be looking forward to some form of compensation. It’s the principle of it.
  • 0 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    V
    they should be required to be designed to be safe in the way people actually use them, as opposed to this hypothetical driver who has duct taped thier hands to the wheel...