Why? Cause he wanted to read the bill before voting on it. Republicans forced it through and overrode the minimum amount of time to read it. Sure, 72 hours would be problematic, but they didn't even want to give them a handful of hours.
In the end, he voted yes. Some guy also had to talk for 52 minutes straight to try and give them time to read the bill to ensure nothing bad was snuck in.
Sorry, didn't mean to word it as support. Just wording it as the reality of what they think.
I think you're missing the point. It's that they built it to begin with. And it's not always enclosed. Stadiums exist all over that aren't air conditioned and don't close. It's the level of effort to overcome the heat. Yet we still can't air condition damn Amazon warehouses or UPS trucks. Both of those have had folks pass out from heat.
It's not overly simplistic. It's simply not a privacy feature if the core functionality is sharing your data. Privacy is if they stopped sharing data. Sharing more data is antithetical to privacy.
Could just be a new person who wants to make a good impression and came across it recently for the exact reason you provided. No need to get conspiratorial about it. Dunno if you're suggesting the film would hire someone to do this or what, but feel like it's a bit more likely it's just innocuous.
No, it's just a very poorly thought out rebrand. Articles keep saying "X, formerly Twitter" because without it, articles actually sound pretty bad and look silly. It's a bad name for an Internet service. It's generic. It doesn't do well in web searches. It doesn't sound good when talking out loud. It's all around a poor idea according to any marketing theory. People are used to saying tweets. It already essentially had total mind share. It was the standard for microblogging. It reached "Kleenex" or "band-aid" status in being the default reference for the concept.
And he just ditched it because he likes the letter X.
Tbf, we have no idea how she took it. This doesn't offer any context what so ever. She could have been laughing for all we know. Honestly, based on her actions in the past, that seems much more likely.
Basically it's a way for a "third party" that's chosen by the web server to verify the environment where the front end code is running meets its standards. Those standards would be up to the third party. So I'd imagine if an assessor said "hey, we can verify ads load properly" or even "we verify this extension isn't running" then many sites would possibly choose those assessors. It also is blatantly deceitful because of all the issues it suggests it can fix, it doesn't actually fix any of them. And many of them aren't even that big of a problem.
You'd want to include your instance as part of your handle. I know, it's not as intuitive as a centralized service, but it is a requirement, especially when sharing the name elsewhere. So, your Lemmy account is chamrsdeluxe@lemmy.world. Folks on lemmy.world don't need that, but folks on another instance (like me) would. I can get it from clicking your username, but there's no way to figure it out for a different platform from here.
Trying to change ownership and permissions probably.
It's very unclear from the quoting here, but he's responding to an anonymous executive who said they should just drag out negotiations until they start losing homes to force them into a deal. So Perlman is defending the good folks here.
It doesn't have to do with Star Trek. That's just the name of the Lemmy instance that uploaded it. The community it's uploaded to is comicstrips@lemmy.world.