Termux. launches Bash and provides a debian-style package management system for extra tools. think Cygwin for Android.
If you have a [physical keyboard then your phone can essentially become just a screen.
The one thing I wish it could do on a stock phone is talk to a USB-OTG serial adapter. unfortunately that requires root and I haven't felt like modifying my phone's base system to get it.
Yes, but with the caveat that exceedingly few high-paying jobs are hourly, so unless you're a master machinist prototyping aerospace parts on a mill and lathe you'll probably have to have a salary job in order to make a lot of money.
While I can appreciate an employer that attempts to provide means for employees to get meaningful breaks if their shifts are going to be long and arduous, I more appreciate employers that don't compel their employees to work far over a standard 40 hour workweek.
Admittedly my perspectives on labor tend to fall toward the employee-protection side, but unless one is involved in the corporate-level decisions of a company I don't think that one should be salaried-exempt. As far as I'm concerned, end-workers that don't manage anyone else and middle-managers that are provided directives to the enforce upon their teams without really providing executive-level steering of the company should be paid overtime when they cross 40 hours. The whole point of being salaried-exempt originally was for those who ran companies and had a strong financial stake in those companies, rather than being workers paid for their production output. The modern white-collar job and other office-based jobs can muddy the distinction a bit, but it's pretty easy to identify when a supervisor or director sets policy, versus merely enforces or interprets policy set by someone above them, to the best of their abilities. To make an analogy to the world of education, in such a system teachers and department-heads that also teach would not be salaried-exempt. Those with "Superintendent" in their title would be salaried-exempt. Principals are the only place it gets muddy, but generally they are there to interpret and enforce policy, so they too would probably not be salaried-exempt, though that may depend on how much autonomy and authority they have over the campus, and how they have to answer to those above them.
Anyway, back to the tech-employee, if an employee is not expected to regularly and consistently work more than 40 hours a week, then these diversionary tactics are not generally needed, because the employee can generally concentrate and make efforts for four hours at a stretch with a brief lunch after the first chunk of the day. It's only when the employee essentially lives there, has essentially moved-in for the vast majority of their waking-hours, that it becomes necessary to provide the comforts or home or other diversions to allow them to thrive without going crazy. And when one considers the amount of time wasted in these diversions (think of the Startup-stereotypical ping-pong or fooseball table) it's pretty likely that the employer isn't getting a whole lot more than those 40 hours per week in productivity anyway.
To look at my own experience, what would benefit me the most is if my employer would reduce the number of lines of communication (landline, cell phone, e-mail, SMS, spark, jabber are simply too many and simply monitoring for incoming communications requires too much attention, pick two or three at most), would set specific time blocks for meetings so that employees are not unnecessarily disrupted in workflow and so bosses are available for consult, and would create a policy on when it is and when it is not acceptable to interrupt someone while they're working I would find my productivity increased without having to work any more hours. When I get interrupted it takes me some time to get back on-track again. Being interrupted for something important is one thing, but being interrupted for trivial things or for things that others should already know how to do are other matters entirely.
I expect hijinks more than puns or even sexual harassment. I wouldn't be surprised if the amount of such harassment remains essentially unchanged from what it is now, but the introduction of the new setting may make for employees that are already inclined to get frisky with each other happy to try a new venue for their passions besides the supply closet etc.
That was basically what I was speculating on, and the possibility of using parabolic dishes or some other highly directional means to aim the signal at each point of emissions.
The descriptions we've had publicly released indicate that the points of effect are very narrow, sometimes as narrow as a single room, sometimes as narrow as the bed. If ultrasound transmitters are positioned in adjacent floors or adjacent buildings, or even in vans on the street, all trained on the room or the bed, then when the signals aren't overlapping they're not really having any effect, but where their paths overlap they intermodulate and that's where a human is medically affected.
What we haven't really been told is if these attacks have been on the personal residences of staff that are outside of the embassy, if they've been on official staff apartments within the embassy, and what the architecture and construction is. I expect all of these have been above-ground. As bedrooms I expect that there are windows, and if the weather in Cuba is like the weather in Hawaii, windows may be thin or may spend a lot of time open to the air. If there's essentially no barrier, then perhaps sleeping in a different part of the building with either no windows, or with windows that only open into a fully enclosed interior courtyard might prevent attacks from being practical, or if materials like dual-pane windows manage to block some kind of ultrasound or infrasound waves, install those and instruct staff to keep exterior-facing windows closed, only opening windows to interior courtyards at night.
Admittedly I'm not an acoustics expert but if they think that inaudible sound is causing the damage, it would seem that moving to where that sound cannot reach would be the simplest solution.
I'm more inclined to believe that it's another state-actor or else a very, very large criminal enterprise, something on the international scale.
If a state-actor they want to limit the US and the West generally from bringing Cuba into the fold.
If it's a large criminal enterprise, it would be because they are using Cuba for some part of their operation that would be identified and shut down if the US were more heavily involved in Cuba.
First problem, Wikipedia. Not saying it cannot be fixed, but the way that articles are edited and the ability of an editor to win by simply out-camping everyone else is a problem.
Second problem, some topics do not readily lend themselves to easy explanation. Perhaps Wikipedia should include more overview paragraphs, but unfortunately to understand some topics one really does need the underlying education.
I don't think that SpaceX has published the refurb costs, but SpaceX has stated that the cost of the rocket itself, not the cost of the fuel, is the expensive part of launching. Millions upon millions of dollars for the rocket, hundreds of thousands of dollars for the fuel.
If the refurb process costs more like what the fuel costs, then suddenly the price drops dramatically. Basically that's what we're waiting to see, if SpaceX can reliably launch used rockets again and again and again, and if some of that savings gets passed on to the launch customers. It'll also be interesting to see what the fallout for any failed commercial launches is, and if SpaceX ever gets man-rated, if that's limited to new rockets, to rockets that have only flown a set number of times, or if it's open to all rockets however used.
And I watched SpaceX go from blowing up rockets, to making orbit less than ten years ago, to becoming a (semi) reliable truck to the ISS, to LANDING A FREAKING ROCKET ON A BARGE, to reflying reused rockets almost casually.
That's how engineering is supposed to work. Incremental changes leading to improvements in reliability and capability, and hopefully reduction in cost.
Interesting as the Space Shuttle was, it was an engineering mistake, it was basically launching a crewed space station and then landing it each time. If it had been able to turn around and fly again in a matter of days or weeks that would be one thing, but it took months to refurbish any individual craft between flights. So expensive to design and build, expensive to launch, expensive to prepare for next launch. And for some reason we used it as a cargo vehicle when it would have been much more cost effective to launch cargo with an unmanned rocket with a faring designed for that cargo. The space station probably could have had much larger individual segments and could have been assembled faster if the components didn't have the shuttlebay as their design constraint.
SpaceX's approach, with both the reusable rocket and the inexpensive capsule intended for use in the limited time between the ground and the station, and then the station and the ground, makes a lot of sense. Hopefully they'll get man-rating soon.
One of the problems with Microsoft Office is that most people don't even scratch the surface for the features it provides. Most people, even in the business world could probably get by with Wordpad instead of Word, and most people that use excel hardly get past basic operands.
Now, migrate from a 19" desktop monitor or 13" laptop monitor to a 10" tablet or 5" phone and Office itself doesn't really work. Between not really using the features and now not really being able to use the features, there's no good reason for Office on the small screens.
Looking at your responses what I take is that Microsoft isn't going to be the next IBM, they're just not going to see the kinds of growth that they enjoyed in the years when consumers were having to buy computers for the first time in order to get on the Internet.
Think about it, there was a period from the mid-nineties to the mid noughties where we went from little consumer Internet use to a large majority of households having consumer Internet access, even faster-than-modem access. Being the dominant PC operating system meant that Windows itself was overwhelmingly profitable and expanded Microsoft's profits more than ever before, and likely without costing the company all that much in development to do so.
Once the vast majority of households have PCs though, sales growth will tail-off. Sure there will still be lots of sales, but those sales will come in the form of replacing existing PCs with new ones preloaded with Windows, not whole new markets getting in on top of replacement PCs. Microsoft will be profitable, but not stupid-profitable like they were for about a decade.
Microsoft has since made a push to get PCs into all workplaces for as many workers as possible, whether those workers really need their own PCs or not. Where they got a bit blindsided is with tablets and smartphones, where proprietary applications like workorder and dispatch systems can run on operating systems other than Windows. I partially blame Microsoft's UI, anyone that worked with older Windows CE would agree that "WinCE" was an accurate way of describing the experience on a PDA, and they never really got it truly right, while both Google with Android and Apple with iOS learned from watching Palm and designed OSes with the best features from the PalmOS GUI but now with automatic cloud connectivity for the default applications. Microsoft never got over trying to shoehorn a desktop OS into a phone, and thought being Windows on the desktop to applications on Windows on the phone would be worth more than it proved to be, as developers seem happy to write Android and iOS versions of their packages.
Your last point won't happen because people won't give up what they have and won't be satisfied with what they already have.
That's part why Soviet Communism doesn't work, people are dissatisfied when they can't have what they want or need. Soviet Communism may initially appeal to a truly downtrodden population because it can promise the world, but it can't deliver because there aren't enough resources. It also doesn't reward those who are truly innovative either, or those who have and use skills that deserve some extra reward.
Come to think of it, if a craft were designed correctly, it might even be useful for reintegrating Martian visitors back to Earth at the end of the trip, by starting with Martian-average gravity and slowly increasing it until about 3/4 of the way it's up to Earth-average. Make it gradual and maybe it'll be easier.
I suppose that's part of why I speculate on cables, winches, and two distinct structures. We can already build cables strong enough out of steel, and we can build platforms that can handle considerable weight (ie mass and acceleration) upon which to build habitats or cargo containers that themselves would be more like terrestrial buildings in the direction of force they would have to withstand.
Sometimes I wonder how much equivalent to gravity would be necessary to forestall degradation of the body, versus the engineering cost compared to engineering for 1G to achieve it and to launch it. Would 0.5G be enough? If not, 0.6 or 0.7? Do the engineering, materials, and launch costs come down when engineering for 0.5G or 0.7G compared to 1G?
In this case good engineering is not about making a perfect solution, it's about making a solution that's the least expensive while being satisfactory. The analogy of building bridges works, just about anyone could probably design a bridge that's strong enough, but it takes real talent to build a bridge that's just strong enough. That's what we should be considering here.
I was under the impression that because the Ringworld was a ring, any perturbations in its orbit would destabilize it gravitationally relative to the star, and once part of it got close enough, gravity would pull it into contact with the star.
And there's a moderation system here, theoretically designed to judge the quality of speech without actually restricting it. Granted, as any forum can become something of an echo-chamber then perhaps it is not perfect, but usually poor-quality comments get moderated down and high-quality comments moderated up.
As to the FUD about Microsoft in particular, Microsoft's history since its inception has been fraught with nefariousness. MS-DOS was essentially a clone of CP/M, at least as far as the particulars of the user interface are concerned. At one point Microsoft used an OEM licensing model that essentially froze-out competing OSes because the OEM had to pay for Microsoft for all personal computers sold whether or not Microsoft's OSes were wanted by the end-customer. Microsoft over the years has attempted to freeze-out competition through writing their own function-alike software and then once it becomes popular, writing proprietary components into it and pushing for those proprietary components to be widely implemented such that competitors' software is unable to work.
If Microsoft software was high quality, bug-free, security-hole-free, then perhaps there wouldn't be so much anger at Microsoft's business practices, but Microsoft's software has historically been both bug-riddled and terribly insecure and open for exploitation. Entire industries have been built to attempt to make up for mediocre software. It's no surprise when a new target-for-compatiblity becomes concerned, as history has demonstrated that by introducing compatibility, Microsoft will break that compatibility when it feels the time is right to get customers to migrate to Microsoft off of whatever previous software they used, and the cycle repeats.
I know that replying to you is to an extent playing into your racism and xenophobia, but you do realize that if you regularly send only a particular racial group like South Asians out into space as a matter of regular colonization and settlement and do so fully expecting them to adapt and be capable of living and working in those conditions, that the group that you profess so much hatred for will be the most successful racial group in human history, having been the only group to successfully colonize space and move beyond Earth...
Hell, they may be the only racial group to survive the eventual end of a habitable Earth, the only humans left in the universe.
Well, back when Larry Niven's Ringworld became popular, some engineering students actually did the math based on Niven's own description of the fictional ring, and concluded that the Ringworld was not stable around its star. Niven later integrated those stability problems into the plot of future Ringworld novels.
Would a circular station like in 2001 or an O'Neill Cylinder like Babylon 5 actually be as stable as we all assume? Would there have to be movable masses located around the perimeter that could be shifted to account for internal mass movement of people and materials? Would it simply make more sense to have a craft on a long tether, tied to a counterweight on the far end, the whole thing tumbling as it travels? The latter solution probably would be a poor one for a close-orbiting station but might make for a good interplanetary craft, where the counterweight could be machinery or supplies that are useless during the transit but would be essential on arrival. Such a craft would probably need a winch to pull the tether in and bring to two halves together, that winch itself could be in the counterweight part to help ensure that there's sufficient mass for the system on a return trip that presumably has shed a lot of the original mass.
That's pretty much in-line with my observation. Album-sales didn't really lose you to anything else because you didn't really buy albums to begin with.
Did Spotify replace regular broadcast radio for you?
Slashdot Mirror
I meant within termux itself.
I have a USB terminal program but I have to change applications, can't simply launch minicom and be done with it.
Isn't this just Crouton for Android?
Termux. launches Bash and provides a debian-style package management system for extra tools. think Cygwin for Android.
If you have a [physical keyboard then your phone can essentially become just a screen.
The one thing I wish it could do on a stock phone is talk to a USB-OTG serial adapter. unfortunately that requires root and I haven't felt like modifying my phone's base system to get it.
Yes, but with the caveat that exceedingly few high-paying jobs are hourly, so unless you're a master machinist prototyping aerospace parts on a mill and lathe you'll probably have to have a salary job in order to make a lot of money.
While I can appreciate an employer that attempts to provide means for employees to get meaningful breaks if their shifts are going to be long and arduous, I more appreciate employers that don't compel their employees to work far over a standard 40 hour workweek.
Admittedly my perspectives on labor tend to fall toward the employee-protection side, but unless one is involved in the corporate-level decisions of a company I don't think that one should be salaried-exempt. As far as I'm concerned, end-workers that don't manage anyone else and middle-managers that are provided directives to the enforce upon their teams without really providing executive-level steering of the company should be paid overtime when they cross 40 hours. The whole point of being salaried-exempt originally was for those who ran companies and had a strong financial stake in those companies, rather than being workers paid for their production output. The modern white-collar job and other office-based jobs can muddy the distinction a bit, but it's pretty easy to identify when a supervisor or director sets policy, versus merely enforces or interprets policy set by someone above them, to the best of their abilities. To make an analogy to the world of education, in such a system teachers and department-heads that also teach would not be salaried-exempt. Those with "Superintendent" in their title would be salaried-exempt. Principals are the only place it gets muddy, but generally they are there to interpret and enforce policy, so they too would probably not be salaried-exempt, though that may depend on how much autonomy and authority they have over the campus, and how they have to answer to those above them.
Anyway, back to the tech-employee, if an employee is not expected to regularly and consistently work more than 40 hours a week, then these diversionary tactics are not generally needed, because the employee can generally concentrate and make efforts for four hours at a stretch with a brief lunch after the first chunk of the day. It's only when the employee essentially lives there, has essentially moved-in for the vast majority of their waking-hours, that it becomes necessary to provide the comforts or home or other diversions to allow them to thrive without going crazy. And when one considers the amount of time wasted in these diversions (think of the Startup-stereotypical ping-pong or fooseball table) it's pretty likely that the employer isn't getting a whole lot more than those 40 hours per week in productivity anyway.
To look at my own experience, what would benefit me the most is if my employer would reduce the number of lines of communication (landline, cell phone, e-mail, SMS, spark, jabber are simply too many and simply monitoring for incoming communications requires too much attention, pick two or three at most), would set specific time blocks for meetings so that employees are not unnecessarily disrupted in workflow and so bosses are available for consult, and would create a policy on when it is and when it is not acceptable to interrupt someone while they're working I would find my productivity increased without having to work any more hours. When I get interrupted it takes me some time to get back on-track again. Being interrupted for something important is one thing, but being interrupted for trivial things or for things that others should already know how to do are other matters entirely.
I expect hijinks more than puns or even sexual harassment. I wouldn't be surprised if the amount of such harassment remains essentially unchanged from what it is now, but the introduction of the new setting may make for employees that are already inclined to get frisky with each other happy to try a new venue for their passions besides the supply closet etc.
That was basically what I was speculating on, and the possibility of using parabolic dishes or some other highly directional means to aim the signal at each point of emissions.
Think this XKCD but with a little less humor.
The descriptions we've had publicly released indicate that the points of effect are very narrow, sometimes as narrow as a single room, sometimes as narrow as the bed. If ultrasound transmitters are positioned in adjacent floors or adjacent buildings, or even in vans on the street, all trained on the room or the bed, then when the signals aren't overlapping they're not really having any effect, but where their paths overlap they intermodulate and that's where a human is medically affected.
What we haven't really been told is if these attacks have been on the personal residences of staff that are outside of the embassy, if they've been on official staff apartments within the embassy, and what the architecture and construction is. I expect all of these have been above-ground. As bedrooms I expect that there are windows, and if the weather in Cuba is like the weather in Hawaii, windows may be thin or may spend a lot of time open to the air. If there's essentially no barrier, then perhaps sleeping in a different part of the building with either no windows, or with windows that only open into a fully enclosed interior courtyard might prevent attacks from being practical, or if materials like dual-pane windows manage to block some kind of ultrasound or infrasound waves, install those and instruct staff to keep exterior-facing windows closed, only opening windows to interior courtyards at night.
Admittedly I'm not an acoustics expert but if they think that inaudible sound is causing the damage, it would seem that moving to where that sound cannot reach would be the simplest solution.
Marines never left. We still are using a large bay there.
*grin* subtle, at least initially.
I'm more inclined to believe that it's another state-actor or else a very, very large criminal enterprise, something on the international scale.
If a state-actor they want to limit the US and the West generally from bringing Cuba into the fold.
If it's a large criminal enterprise, it would be because they are using Cuba for some part of their operation that would be identified and shut down if the US were more heavily involved in Cuba.
First problem, Wikipedia. Not saying it cannot be fixed, but the way that articles are edited and the ability of an editor to win by simply out-camping everyone else is a problem.
Second problem, some topics do not readily lend themselves to easy explanation. Perhaps Wikipedia should include more overview paragraphs, but unfortunately to understand some topics one really does need the underlying education.
I don't think that SpaceX has published the refurb costs, but SpaceX has stated that the cost of the rocket itself, not the cost of the fuel, is the expensive part of launching. Millions upon millions of dollars for the rocket, hundreds of thousands of dollars for the fuel.
If the refurb process costs more like what the fuel costs, then suddenly the price drops dramatically. Basically that's what we're waiting to see, if SpaceX can reliably launch used rockets again and again and again, and if some of that savings gets passed on to the launch customers. It'll also be interesting to see what the fallout for any failed commercial launches is, and if SpaceX ever gets man-rated, if that's limited to new rockets, to rockets that have only flown a set number of times, or if it's open to all rockets however used.
And I watched SpaceX go from blowing up rockets, to making orbit less than ten years ago, to becoming a (semi) reliable truck to the ISS, to LANDING A FREAKING ROCKET ON A BARGE, to reflying reused rockets almost casually.
That's how engineering is supposed to work. Incremental changes leading to improvements in reliability and capability, and hopefully reduction in cost.
Interesting as the Space Shuttle was, it was an engineering mistake, it was basically launching a crewed space station and then landing it each time. If it had been able to turn around and fly again in a matter of days or weeks that would be one thing, but it took months to refurbish any individual craft between flights. So expensive to design and build, expensive to launch, expensive to prepare for next launch. And for some reason we used it as a cargo vehicle when it would have been much more cost effective to launch cargo with an unmanned rocket with a faring designed for that cargo. The space station probably could have had much larger individual segments and could have been assembled faster if the components didn't have the shuttlebay as their design constraint.
SpaceX's approach, with both the reusable rocket and the inexpensive capsule intended for use in the limited time between the ground and the station, and then the station and the ground, makes a lot of sense. Hopefully they'll get man-rating soon.
One of the problems with Microsoft Office is that most people don't even scratch the surface for the features it provides. Most people, even in the business world could probably get by with Wordpad instead of Word, and most people that use excel hardly get past basic operands.
Now, migrate from a 19" desktop monitor or 13" laptop monitor to a 10" tablet or 5" phone and Office itself doesn't really work. Between not really using the features and now not really being able to use the features, there's no good reason for Office on the small screens.
Looking at your responses what I take is that Microsoft isn't going to be the next IBM, they're just not going to see the kinds of growth that they enjoyed in the years when consumers were having to buy computers for the first time in order to get on the Internet.
Think about it, there was a period from the mid-nineties to the mid noughties where we went from little consumer Internet use to a large majority of households having consumer Internet access, even faster-than-modem access. Being the dominant PC operating system meant that Windows itself was overwhelmingly profitable and expanded Microsoft's profits more than ever before, and likely without costing the company all that much in development to do so.
Once the vast majority of households have PCs though, sales growth will tail-off. Sure there will still be lots of sales, but those sales will come in the form of replacing existing PCs with new ones preloaded with Windows, not whole new markets getting in on top of replacement PCs. Microsoft will be profitable, but not stupid-profitable like they were for about a decade.
Microsoft has since made a push to get PCs into all workplaces for as many workers as possible, whether those workers really need their own PCs or not. Where they got a bit blindsided is with tablets and smartphones, where proprietary applications like workorder and dispatch systems can run on operating systems other than Windows. I partially blame Microsoft's UI, anyone that worked with older Windows CE would agree that "WinCE" was an accurate way of describing the experience on a PDA, and they never really got it truly right, while both Google with Android and Apple with iOS learned from watching Palm and designed OSes with the best features from the PalmOS GUI but now with automatic cloud connectivity for the default applications. Microsoft never got over trying to shoehorn a desktop OS into a phone, and thought being Windows on the desktop to applications on Windows on the phone would be worth more than it proved to be, as developers seem happy to write Android and iOS versions of their packages.
Your last point won't happen because people won't give up what they have and won't be satisfied with what they already have.
That's part why Soviet Communism doesn't work, people are dissatisfied when they can't have what they want or need. Soviet Communism may initially appeal to a truly downtrodden population because it can promise the world, but it can't deliver because there aren't enough resources. It also doesn't reward those who are truly innovative either, or those who have and use skills that deserve some extra reward.
Who's Lebron James?
That is a good point.
Come to think of it, if a craft were designed correctly, it might even be useful for reintegrating Martian visitors back to Earth at the end of the trip, by starting with Martian-average gravity and slowly increasing it until about 3/4 of the way it's up to Earth-average. Make it gradual and maybe it'll be easier.
I'm betting on the Shadows myself.
I suppose that's part of why I speculate on cables, winches, and two distinct structures. We can already build cables strong enough out of steel, and we can build platforms that can handle considerable weight (ie mass and acceleration) upon which to build habitats or cargo containers that themselves would be more like terrestrial buildings in the direction of force they would have to withstand.
Sometimes I wonder how much equivalent to gravity would be necessary to forestall degradation of the body, versus the engineering cost compared to engineering for 1G to achieve it and to launch it. Would 0.5G be enough? If not, 0.6 or 0.7? Do the engineering, materials, and launch costs come down when engineering for 0.5G or 0.7G compared to 1G?
In this case good engineering is not about making a perfect solution, it's about making a solution that's the least expensive while being satisfactory. The analogy of building bridges works, just about anyone could probably design a bridge that's strong enough, but it takes real talent to build a bridge that's just strong enough. That's what we should be considering here.
I was under the impression that because the Ringworld was a ring, any perturbations in its orbit would destabilize it gravitationally relative to the star, and once part of it got close enough, gravity would pull it into contact with the star.
And there's a moderation system here, theoretically designed to judge the quality of speech without actually restricting it. Granted, as any forum can become something of an echo-chamber then perhaps it is not perfect, but usually poor-quality comments get moderated down and high-quality comments moderated up.
As to the FUD about Microsoft in particular, Microsoft's history since its inception has been fraught with nefariousness. MS-DOS was essentially a clone of CP/M, at least as far as the particulars of the user interface are concerned. At one point Microsoft used an OEM licensing model that essentially froze-out competing OSes because the OEM had to pay for Microsoft for all personal computers sold whether or not Microsoft's OSes were wanted by the end-customer. Microsoft over the years has attempted to freeze-out competition through writing their own function-alike software and then once it becomes popular, writing proprietary components into it and pushing for those proprietary components to be widely implemented such that competitors' software is unable to work.
If Microsoft software was high quality, bug-free, security-hole-free, then perhaps there wouldn't be so much anger at Microsoft's business practices, but Microsoft's software has historically been both bug-riddled and terribly insecure and open for exploitation. Entire industries have been built to attempt to make up for mediocre software. It's no surprise when a new target-for-compatiblity becomes concerned, as history has demonstrated that by introducing compatibility, Microsoft will break that compatibility when it feels the time is right to get customers to migrate to Microsoft off of whatever previous software they used, and the cycle repeats.
especially if you have no mouth
I know that replying to you is to an extent playing into your racism and xenophobia, but you do realize that if you regularly send only a particular racial group like South Asians out into space as a matter of regular colonization and settlement and do so fully expecting them to adapt and be capable of living and working in those conditions, that the group that you profess so much hatred for will be the most successful racial group in human history, having been the only group to successfully colonize space and move beyond Earth...
Hell, they may be the only racial group to survive the eventual end of a habitable Earth, the only humans left in the universe.
Well, back when Larry Niven's Ringworld became popular, some engineering students actually did the math based on Niven's own description of the fictional ring, and concluded that the Ringworld was not stable around its star. Niven later integrated those stability problems into the plot of future Ringworld novels.
Would a circular station like in 2001 or an O'Neill Cylinder like Babylon 5 actually be as stable as we all assume? Would there have to be movable masses located around the perimeter that could be shifted to account for internal mass movement of people and materials? Would it simply make more sense to have a craft on a long tether, tied to a counterweight on the far end, the whole thing tumbling as it travels? The latter solution probably would be a poor one for a close-orbiting station but might make for a good interplanetary craft, where the counterweight could be machinery or supplies that are useless during the transit but would be essential on arrival. Such a craft would probably need a winch to pull the tether in and bring to two halves together, that winch itself could be in the counterweight part to help ensure that there's sufficient mass for the system on a return trip that presumably has shed a lot of the original mass.
That's pretty much in-line with my observation. Album-sales didn't really lose you to anything else because you didn't really buy albums to begin with.
Did Spotify replace regular broadcast radio for you?