Well one doesn't necessary need to get rid of electoral college, if the electors were appointed by proportional vote and representation. At that point it would be just a smudging filter. National popular vote with extra steps and some added in accuracy due to one being able to do so much proportionality given how many electors there is.

So the main problem is not electoral college, but the voting method. Just as note since also getting rid of electoral college isn't a fix, if the direct popular election uses bad voting method. Like say nationwide plurality vote would be horrible replacement for electoral college.

Though I would assume anyone suggesting popular vote would mean nationwide majority win popular vote. Though that will demand a "fail to reach majority" resolver. Be it a two round system (second round with top two candidates, thus guaranteed majority result) or some form of instant run-off with guaranteed majority win after elimination rounds.

TLDR: main problem I winner take all plurality, first past the post more than the technicality of there existing such bureaucratic element as electors and electoral votes.

Always 50/50 because two party system, FPTP and electoral college.

There not being a better play doesn't mean that play is a good one. It is a bad play, just the least bad one. What it means the system overall is broken and careening ro a crash, since the actually good plays are not politically viable. Mind you not that they wouldn't be voter viable, but the gatekeepers who get to choose what is put in front of voters viably don't want them there, that kind of politically non viable.

Also not only would they need more satellites, but satellites more densely in any area with multitude of customers. Which eventually hits RF interference saturation.

Radio signal has only so much bandwidth in certain amount of frequency band. Infact being high up and far away makes it worse. Since more receivers hit the beam of the satellite transmission. One would have to acquire more radio bands, but we'll unused global satellite transmission bands don't grow in trees.

Tighter transmitters and better filtering receivers can help, but usually at great expense and in the end eventually one hits a limit of "can't cheat laws of physics"

it’s the party that reflexively attacks him for anything that goes wrong.

No it isn't, atleast not the root problem. Root problem is the core rules etc of USA democracy and governing, which allows such dysfunctional situation to arise in the first place. The two party system, the bicameral setup leading to endless feuds and inability to pass legislation, the weird rules accepted in existence by internal procedural rules like the filibuster.

For that both parties are guilty, since I have heard neither of them go "we have a constitutional ruleset problem, we should update the constitution. The rules might have been good for 1700s and much smaller USA. This is 2000s and way bigger and different USA".

one doesn't get to claim "I'm surprised the the Leopard ate my face", if one has been feeding and raising a leopard cub for decades and hasn't decided "maybe we should send the Leopard to a zoo, maybe we should make a rule private home is not right place for Leopard to live in".

Neither party wants to change the system, since it keeps them as number 1 or number 2. You don't get to claim "we have nothing to do with the systemic dysfunctions", if one keeps propping up a dysfunctional system. Doesn't matter who specifically manifests the symptoms. Systemic dysfunctions is systemic.

Ahemm as I understand the previously license did have a "we don't change this license on you" clause, which they removed shortly before this change. As I understand there is atleast possibility, that some existing customer developers might upon being pressed take unity to court over "you said you wouldn't change the license fundamentally without our consent, we had a deal".

What the exact language of that clause and would it hold in court challenge, I don't know. Just heard one interviewed developer say something to affect of "hey they did have we don't change the deal clause, which they sneak removed on pretty recent license update".

I atleast as business would not agree to deal of "yeah we have a deal, except this deal allows us to change the deal however we want".

It might mean having to do time limited or project limited deals, since on otherhand no provider would agree to "we have no room to change deal ever". I would atleast in case of say game development expect clause for example "any fundamental license change must have 2 year announcement time for existing customer." Such clauses are very common in "on-going basis contracts and deals". Heck international treaties use such clauses "If you want to leave this treaty, you must give other treaty parties 1/2/3/5 year notice and for the duration of that notice period you are still bound by the treaty".

So I would guess: If this ends ugly, there will be lawsuits over was the license change contractually legal, were the possibble change notices clear enough upon the main change being in itself legal and for example was some jurisdictions fair and good behavior clauses of national contract law itself violated. Was enough notice time given etc. Since one cant make any contrac or contract change whatever one likes, business contracts are always subservient to local contract law regulating what can be agreed, how and what amounts to stuff like informed consent, how contract terms can be changed and regulation on prohibition of underhanded or deceptive business practices.

Actually yes. Though not the business owners really. Instead it was society and strategic planners. It is matter of supply security, not of profit maximization. Which is why incentives and penalties were involved.

Also presumably lacking the cheapest of cheap labor, production automation would be increased. In low cost production countries like China, they don't always use hordes of cheap labour due to not being able to automate. Rather it is cheaper to use lot of wage slaves operating manual machines, than to pay for the more expensive specialized automated production machinery. Specially on short term. On long term the automated machines probably amortize themselves and then start to make gains over the wage slaving, but well that takes time and one thing quarter report stock market capitalism hates is having to wait for anything. They will take less profits overall over decade, if they can get more profits this quarter or this year.

Is it rational? Well no obviously rational business expecting to be around for decade would take the long term bigger overall profits. It's literally more money earned for the company as long as one plans for the company to be around at the end of the decade. However companies are not managed by rational machines, but instead by these things called CEOs. CEOs, despite their claims, are often anything but rational. CEO's with personal motives, CEO's with emotional quirks, CEO's with inbuilt expectations, CEO's with in-built assumptions, often wrong assumptions, CEO's with incentive packages that often are not really that thought through. Stock holders looking to incentivize short time stock gain over long term business profitability.

Well checking it up they don't actually have their own instance. Instead they arranged an account on the social.bund.de instance, which is run by the German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (BfDI) for purpose of offering official accounts to german governmental entities.

What makes it still "less likely something bad is right next to them" is exactly, that only government official and officials can get accounts on that instance and is for official use only. So thus it's a sterile controlled instance.

I'm sure they could have also spun their own instance, but well bund.de service was already running one anyway so just hop on that band wagon.

I think this will become a more common thing. Governments run a national "official business" instance, where there is only official communications accounts of various government bodies and goverment officers (The official account of the office of the Presidency of the country, the official account of the Prime minister of the country and so on).

Those amounts there. For comparison for example another recent plant Olkiluoto 3 in Finland was 13 years late on a 5 year original construction timeline (18 years total construction time) and ~~10~~ 8 billion euros over budget on original budget of 3 billion euros. (Final estimate it cost constructor ~~13-14~~ 11 billion euros to build. Technically its fixed price contract so customer price is still 3 billion. However it did bankrupt the builder Areva and litigations are ongoing about, if the French can extract more money from he customer TVO)

So doubling the price budget and doubling the build time is not at all unreasonable first estimate on the announced numbers of the builder and customers at start of project.

also upon being able to attack external screen one probably could attach external keyboard and mouse. use those then to operate the device. Depends on exact phone of course, but often android phones accept external keyboard and mice.

Well some might. Then you are free to vote with wallet and move to the maker who still thinks water resistance and dust is good sell factor for phones. Market working like it's supposed and so on. Within the guiding barriers market regulations.

Well neither can it hallucinate by the "not being able to lie" standard. To hallucinate would mean there was some other correct baseline behavior from which hallucinating is deviation.

LLM is not a mind, one shouldn't use words like lie or hallucinate about it. That antromorphises a mechanistic algorhitm.

This is simply algorhitm producing arbitrary answers with no validity to reality checks on the results. Since neither are those times it happens to produce correct answer "not hallucinating". It is hallucinating or not hallucinating exactly as much regardless of the correctness of the answer. Since its just doing it's algorhitmic thing.