I always assume, unfortunately, that once companies start to get to a certain point they become strategic, and military applications comes into play. They then probably get special consideration when it comes to funding and access. All of Musk's efforts certainly fit this paradigm.
Google "atoms for peace." You will find an entire multidimensional cluster of hype ranging from Rickover maneuvering to get a nuclear navy, which seems to work pretty well, but on the way there it created a subsidized nuclear reactor business which was never in the money but for subsidies, loss leaders, and underbids. There was no Golden Age of nuclear power. There were fixed bid contracts that masked cost overruns until they didn't anymore. There was FOMO about Soviet gigantism and (subsidized) European nuclear projects.
I completely support not being dependant on a foreign company (or any company at all, standards FTW) and I don't think there should even be a shadow of possibility that an organization like the ICC could be cut off from services due to a foreign directive, but while I have seen it repeated many times, I think the article's opening assertion is not true; https://www.politico.eu/article/microsoft-did-not-cut-servic...
It is very distressing how many organizations have become dependant on Microsoft and the US cloud for core services. I hope that an unintended consequence of the current US administration's approach is that this becomes less so.
It's not strictly true, but the distinction between the truth and the assertion is small enough that the ICC itself draws the conclusion that Microsoft didn't yet:
> I think the article's opening assertion is not true
The link you provided does not appear to contradict the assertion in any way. "We have not cut off services to the ICC" != "We have not cut off services to one specific sanctioned individual who just so happened to coincidentally be on the ICC". The linked article even mentions Microsoft were pressed on the specific subject of the individual rather than the ICC as a whole, but declined to comment, so it looks like a regular case of weasel wording to distort the truth.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I think emulating a physical screen in a virtual field of view is the wrong way to do this. Why introduce off-axis viewing and all the other unnecessary weirdnesses? What if the entire field of view were the screen, with head and eye movement as navigation? I guess make the windows transparent so it's less disorienting, and it would at least initially be overwhelming, but past that it could be quite transformative.
This is deeply unfair. Plenty of people, including those responsible for more focus on environment and human rights, are in that age group. They are leaders and allies. Ageism is just another way divide society.
Absolutely correct, but also... there is something about having your early growing-up years be in the context of consistent 5-6% annual GDP growth rates and the rollout of interstates/highways, performance automobiles, massive urbanization and the development of giant suburbs with McMansions, two cars in every garage, etc. etc. ... to convince you that you deserve prosperity, that exponential growth, and exploding CO2 emitting energy use is the Natural Order Of Things.
It so happens that in parts of North America this life experience is associated mostly with a certain set of of age/demographics.
There are still plenty of people in that group who don't want performance vehicles, highways, McMansions &c. Not only are there people who didn't "benefit" from that environment, there are many people who chose to focus on the needs of the planet or others. A lot of this comes down to urban/suburban/rural divides.
It's just really counterproductive to focus on these easy "majority" stats that break down on examination and contribute to the polarization of society.
May I ask what your rationale was for picking $1m as the threshold? Hundreds of thousands of Americans make between $1m and $5m (another arbitrary range) and millions of Americans worth more than $1m.
