Only war criminals go to bed.

It’s an extinct volcano, so yes.

It’s not practically an opinion piece, it is wholly an opinion piece.

Ship them some emergency Old Bay.

Because there’s sales text in the “educational” article.

You should use an XMPP server that respects your privacy. If you truly want privacy and don’t want to trust any server, we recommend setting up your own server. If this beyond your technical interests then we can setup a server for you and hand over the passwords. If we setup a server for you, then you’d pick the domain name and get complete control over who can use it.

This used to be the only reason, however in the last couple years we’re starting to see streaming services remove their original programming (owned and produced by themselves/their parent or affiliate studios). Seemingly just so they don’t have to pay more in royalties.

Obviously it doesn’t apply to .com or .xyz, but in addition to the concerns about being locked in to Cloud flare’s name servers, they don’t support some gTLDs right now.

From what I’ve read this Marcel LUX III SARL company is also just a holding company under EQT. So nothing major has changed there.

I mean, Canonical is also privately held and not publicly listed. And it looks like this is the same private equity firm that owned SUSE fully before taking them public. (Marcel LUX III SARL is a holding company owned by EQT Private Equity.)

Because they’re a disorganized clusterfuck and he couldn’t be bothered to slightly delay filming to get the proper card. Because for whatever reason they’ve decided they must churn out content at such a high pace that everything they do is like this now.

Honestly the only videos from the last year where I remember things not being totally jank were videos with Emily, but she’s barely been in anything since coming out a few months ago.

Among other possibilities, Utah Code § 76-5-107

(2) (a) An actor commits a threat of violence if the actor: (i) (A) threatens to commit an offense involving bodily injury, death, or substantial property damage; and (B) acts with intent to place an individual in fear of imminent serious bodily injury, substantial bodily injury, or death; or (ii) makes a threat, accompanied by a show of immediate force or violence, to do bodily injury to an individual. (b) A threat under this section may be express or implied.

They showed up with an arrest warrant. Unless and until there’s some evidence where they just rolled up with the intent to murder him, I’m going to presume that’s not the case.

“I hear Biden is coming to Utah. Digging out my old ghillie suit and cleaning the dust off the M24 sniper rifle.”

“Perhaps Utah will become famous this week as the place a sniper took out Biden the Marxist.”

Those probably cross the line and might not be protected speech. Especially when posted with pictures of the firearms and equipment in question.

Yes I’m sure it’ll be plagued by technical problems, and obviously the privacy implications.

As for opting in – that depends on whether this is approved as a method and then who adopts it and whatever they decide. Unless they’re brain dead there will need to be a process for failures, so that could conceivably apply to people who opt out as well

Okay, so this isn’t a new law or regulation. This is the ESRB and a couple companies requesting approval for a new method of providing verifiable parental consent to be acceptable to use for the purpose of satisfying COPPA’s existing requirements. From what I can find, the current approved methods of verifying parental consent appear to be:

• submitting a signed form or a credit card

• talking to trained personnel via a toll-free number or video chat

• answering a series of knowledge-based challenge questions

Instead this would be handing the device to a parent, they snap a selfie and it gets analyzed for age estimation to determine if the person providing parental consent is an adult.

Good or bad, too invasive, idk, not really making a judgement there myself. I’d imagine the companies want this so they don’t have to have as many trained personnel and it’s probably less likely to be a barrier to consent as compared to putting in a credit card, talking to someone, or answering whatever knowledge-based challenges they use.

Not to wear it in court, to be clear.

Partially. The Blink browser engine used in Chromium is a fork from WebKit but it’s diverged quite a bit in some ways I believe. But there’s a lot more that goes into the project. For example, V8, the browser’s JavaScript engine.

The thing is, fonts are copyrightable but typefaces aren’t. Typefaces are the symbols, fonts are the files that contain all the symbols along with the formatting and everything else that let you use the typefaces in software. So he probably can’t copyright the symbol itself and it’s doubtful he could get a trademark on it either. But at the same time, copyright is also weird in that if he made an image and had that X in it, he would have the copyright to that specific image. But that’s only insomuch as anyone else would also own the copyright of an image they made with the stupid X in it.

It’s literally just a Unicode symbol.

From elsewhere:

𝕏 is a generic Unicode character known as “mathematical double-struck capital X.”

I don’t think it should be reserving 8GB in any case.

Edit: plus it’s a Ryzen 2600. No iGPU.

When did the issue start? Did you install new RAM? Are both the new sticks identical or of mixed make? A new CPU? Did you unseat and reseat the CPU or anything before this started?

You tried different RAM? Was it properly addressed or no? Did you try the current or different RAM stick by stick to verify each one is working on its own and then in the recommended slots as per your motherboard manual?

These steps/questions are necessary to determine whether the issue is a bad memory stick, something funky going on with the memory controller wrt slots, timings, combination of different modules, etc, or even the possibility of a defective memory controller or a bent/broken pin on the CPU.