Yeah but because Wikipedia articles, to an extent, ephemeral it is good practise to use the sources at the bottom of the article as your source, rather than the Wikipedia article itself. It makes finding the origin of the information easier.
If it is something more permanent like a paper or a published article, then that doesn’t suffer from the same issues
Police chief wants excuse to look at illegal material
IIYAMA make DSDs that are 4K, although I know that’s not a requirement for OP, so that should be able to replace a TV pretty well
Oooo I hadn’t heard of Niagara launcher before. It looks really beautiful!
I was very happy to find when I was getting involved in a project that it was mostly organised/discussed on their forum, it makes it so much nicer and more accessible
I’m on an Asus UX410U and he’s been going well for 7 years. I’ll probably need to replace it this year or next year as the screen is starting to go, but I feel 7 years is pretty good.
What’s wrong with it?
Never heard of planet computers until you mentioned the Cosmo Communicator. Their products look really cool!
Unfortunately his party are climate change deniers… So that’s a bit disappointing
What is shady about Ghostery?
Retractions are important in case issues with the method are found after publication. For example, if it turns out a piece of equipment was improperly calibrated and so the results can’t be trusted, a retraction of any work based on those results would be expected.
Potentially privacy? Like only you can see your screen. But that’s also a downside if you want to show someone something