Eyron

Fancy. I just have a dumb switch that does it offline with any bulb. No dimming, though

They also fired all their park workers during covid and gave themselves 10 million bonuses while their workers were surviving on food stamps. Some workers had even signed non compete clauses so they literally could not use their talents elsewhere to feed themselves.

There are plenty of things to hate Disney for, especially as they approach super-monopoly status, ruin nearly every franchise they touch, and have trouble telling what's good or not. As a company, Disney's morals and decisions grow more concerning every month. Disney is basically a disaster in progress.

However, this specific complaint seems bad: it's the wrong scale. Many companies were in the wrong during COVID, but it's hard to look at these numbers and say the layoffs here were bad decisions based on $10M in bonuses. The scales are just too different.

Disney laid off 32,000 park workers At a measly 40 hours per week at their "minimum wage" (formerly $15/hr, now $24/hr): that's $83.2 million PER MONTH: $998M a year. A $10M "bonus" is 1% of that, and even smaller compared to the $6.4B of park revenue they had loss.

The former CEO "gave up" their salary ($3M) and "bonus" ($45M in 2019), had 20-30% pay cuts to the executive staff, and a few other items. The CEO did get "$10M" in stock awards, but stock awards don't get you off food stamps. Those stocks become nothing if the company posts bad financials, which would hurt more than just the execs.

The $1.5B dividend payout in April 2020 looks much worse. Abigail Disney ranted about it on Twitter (now X). His rant is at the appropriate scale: Disney paid out billions before they chose to save millions. The execs got quite a bit of that dividend payout. That's the greed.

A hidden experimental flag isn't "fixed." It might be the start, but until it's stable and usable through the normal UI, it's not really done.

Technically, it might be faster, but that's not usually the reason. Email servers generally have to do a lot of work to confirm email messages are not spam. That work usually takes significantly longer than any potential DNS savings. In fact, that spam checking is probably the reason you see the secondary domains used.

When the main domain used for many purposes (like servers, users, printers, vendor communications, accounting communications, and so forth) It leaves a lot of room for misuse. Many pre-ransomware viruses would just send out thousands of emails iper hour. The mass communicating server could also reduce the domain reputation. There are just so many ways to tarnish the reputation of your email server or your email domain.

Many spam analysis systems group the subdomains and domain together. The subdomains contribute to the domain score and the domain score contributes to the subdomain score. To send a lot of emails successfully, you need both your servers and domains to have a very strong and very good reputation. Any marks on that reputation might prevent emails from being received by users. When large numbers of emails need to be controlled, it can be hard to get everyone in the organization to adhere to email rules (especially when the the problems aren't users, but viruses/hackers) and easy to just register a new domain, more strictly controlled domain.

Some of the recent changes in email policies/tech might change the game, but old habits die hard. Separate domains can still generally be more successfully delivered, have potential security benefits, and can often work around IT or policy restrictions. They might phase out, but they might not. The benefit usually outweighs the slight disadvantage that 99% of people won't see.

tl;dr

Better controlled email reputation.

It can be pretty easy to get up a second-hand console cheap, free, and/or as a gift.

Have you ever seen how much good/working stuff people throw away? If you're a little bright, you can get people to pay you to haul their "junk" away.

Time isn't the only factor for adoption. Between the adoption of IPv4 and IPv6, the networking stack shifted away from network companies like Novell to the OSes like Windows, which delayed IPv6 support until Vista.

When IPv4 was adopted, the networking industry was a competitive space. When IPv6 came around, it was becoming stagnant, much like Internet Explorer. It wasn't until Windows Vista that IPv6 became an option, Windows 7 for professionals to consider it, and another few years later for it to actually deployable in a secure manner (and that's still questionable).

Most IT support and developers can even play with IPv6 during the early 2000s because our operating systems and network stacks didn't support it. Meanwhile, there was a boom of Internet connected devices that only supported IPv4. There are a few other things that affected adoption, but it really was a pretty bad time for IPv6 migration. It's a little better now, but "better" still isn't very good.

You should probably read/know the actual law, rather than just getting it close. You're probably referring to 18 USC 922 (d) (10), which includes any felony-- not just shooting. That's one of 11 listed requirements in that section, which assumes that the first requirement (a) (1) is met: not an interstate nor foreign transaction. There's a lot more to it than just "as long as you don't have good evidence they're going to go shoot someone"

Even after the sale, ownership is still illegal under section (g)-- it just isn't the seller's fault anymore.

This is basic information that should be known to any gun safety advocate. "Responsible" gun owners must know those laws, plus others backward and forward. One small slip-up is a felony, jail, and permanent loss of gun ownership/use. Are they really supposed to listen to those who can't even talk about current law correctly?

The law can be better, but you won't do yourself any favors by misrepresenting it.

Voyager - if I didn’t love Voyager Janeway would kick my ass.

No need for threats. Voyager is good.

Blink twice if you need help.

It seems you are mixing the concepts of voting systems and candidate selection. FPP nor FPTP should not sound scary. As a voting systems, FPP works well enough more often than many want to admit. The name just describes it in more detail: First Preference Plurality.

Every voting system is as bottom-up or top-down as the candidate selection process. The voting system itself doesn't really affect whether it is top down or bottom up. Requiring approval/voting from the current rulers would be top-down. Only requiring ten signatures on a community petition is more bottom up.

The voting systems don't care about the candidate selection process. Some require precordination for a "party", but that could also be a party of 1. A party of 1 might not be able to get as much representation as one with more people: but that's also the case for every voting system that selects the same number of candidates.

Voting systems don't even need to be used for representation systems. If a group of friends are voting on where to eat, one problem might be selecting the places to vote on, but that's before the vote. With the vote, FPP might have 70% prefer pizza over Indian food, but the Indian food vote might still win because the pizza voters had another first choice. Having more candidates often leads to minority rule/choice, and that's not very good for food choice nor community representation.

That many steps? WindowsKey+Break > Change computer name.

If you're okay with three steps, on Windows 10 and newer, you can right click the start menu and generally open system. Just about any version supports right clicking "My Computer" or "This PC" and selecting properties, as well.

Do you remember the Internet Explorer days? This, unfortunately, is still much better.

Pretty good reason to switch the Firefox, now. Nearly everything will work, unlike the Internet Explorer days.

• Firefox User

Do you use Android? AI was the last thing on their minds for AOSP until OpenAI got popular. They've been refining the UIs, improving security/permissions, catching up on features, bringing WearOS and Android TV up to par, and making a Google Assistant incompetent. Don't take my word for it; you'll rarely see any AI features before OpenAI's popularity: v15, v14, v13, and v12. As an example of the benefits: Google and Samsung collaborating on WearOS allowed more custom apps and integrations for nearly all users. Still, there was a major drop in battery life and compatibility with non-Android devices compared to Tizen.

There are plenty of other things to complain about with their Android development. Will they continue to change or kill things like they do all their other products? Did WearOS need to require Android OSes and exclude iOS? Do Advertising APIs belong in the base OS? Should vendors be allowed to lock down their devices as much as they do? Should so many features be limited to Pixel devices? Can we get Google Assistant to say "Sorry, something went wrong. When you're ready: give it another try" less often instead of encouraging stupidity? (It's probably not going to work if you try again).

Google does a lot of wrong, even in Android. AI on Android isn't one of them yet. Most other commercially developed operating systems are proprietary, rather than open to users and OEMs. The collaboration leaves much to be desired, but Android is unfortunately one of the best examples of large-scale development of more open and libre/free systems. A better solution than trying to break Android up, is taking/forking Android and making it better than Google seems capable of.