That’s not a bug. It’s the entire aim of an electoral system.

The people who aren’t the extreme ends of two poles and actually have policies the majority are in favor of are the people who are supposed to be in office. I shouldn’t be choosing between “arrest people for using birth control” and “eat the rich and disband the police”.

You also don’t get progress in any direction when both parties are spending half their time unraveling everything the last group did.

You can’t prevent that.

But any system that actively enforces party lines should be automatically disqualified as a legitimate electoral system. It strengthens the power of the dumbest, least informed voters at the expense of rational voters willing to actually understand who candidates are.

Wireless as the only option is a fucking joke.

One more point: a well structured law would likely lower the administrative burden on affected parties as well.

Service providers are asking because they genuinely need to know, and because medical information is pretty much the only area where there are comprehensive regulations on data protection. They could absolutely be held responsible for the negligence of allowing a known infected system to infect them. A known compromised system is known to be compromised until you’ve fully evaluated the attack vector, the scope of access, and taken steps to prevent that attack from happening again.

But because there isn’t a legally standardized mechanism to report security issues, vendors are rolling their own. Many of them would be perfectly satisfied accepting an official, standard, form, especially is there was some language that made it clear that acceptance of the form for reports was enough of a “best practice” to limit their liability if the system infected them after the fact.

You end up with the actual preference of the majority best represented. You don’t get put in a spot where you have to choose one of Trump or Clinton based on which extreme is least objectionable. You can vote for someone sane, then choose between the two extremes as your “worst case”.

It allows moderates to actually be represented instead of primaried out of the race, then scared to be in the general election because they might spoil the race for their party’s winner.

Mitigation isn’t good enough.

Any member of the body not being scrutinized by the entire relevant electorate and actually elected on the ballot is not OK.

The problem with proportional representation is that it assumes candidates are fungible.

It’s bad enough that people vote for a party over an individual, and inherently limits the element of trusting the human being that should be the deciding factor in how people vote. Systematically assigning vote to a party rather than a person is much worse.

Ranked choice. If no one has a majority, you eliminate the lowest vote getter and take the second choice of people who voted for that candidate. Repeat until there’s a majority.

I think that depends.

If he’s accurately representing the reality, he has every right to make behavior he considers unethical from an organization that takes donations known.

The letters aren’t required by any law

They should be.

If you touch any personal information in any way (let alone medical), touching any known compromised system without very clear documentation of how the compromise happened, how it was resolved, and very clear process changes to make sure it doesn’t happen again should be a massive fine per user you service, plus treble actual damages. It’s gross negligence.

Having clear documentation of an attack isn’t red tape. It’s the absolute bare minimum.

The performance (at least on the Pro; I gave my original to my brother) has definitely improved a lot, too. It was a slide show on the original and the pro with and without boost mode enabled for a good while after I bought the PS4 pro, but it’s not bad now. Load times suck though. I basically only made progress once I switched to PS5 and got to take advantage of the SSD. (Note that PS4 games still load way slower than PS5 games on PS5, for the most part.)

Both.

There are absolutely a meaningful number of people who are strongly opposed to profanity, and are not OK with their phone correcting to it, a much larger number of people who only wish to use profanity in certain contexts, and specific profanities (slurs) that absolutely can do real damage with a single use.

They don’t correct away from profanity, but they don’t correct to it either. That’s a reasonable stance. The reason it doesn’t work well with the swipe keyboards is because they’re using the “correct” feature every time without biasing to the manual input, because that’s the only to get decent results out of a bad input method like swipe.

The issue is that accidental profanity (by allowing the board to correct to that language) does significant harm to their reputation and will genuinely make some meaningful portion of their userbase not use them. Regular touch screen keyboards already use invisible prediction magic to make the typing experience better, and swipe leans harder than that into their text prediction.

It’s not as easy as you’d think to train two models to both correct to profanity and completely exclude profanity.

Google “spider trap website” or something.

Exactly.

If you can’t train using public, copyrighted material, Disney has a hell of a model and their monopoly over the entertainment industry goes from huge to insurmountable. No “little guys” gain anything. It’s regulatory capture, nothing more.

It won’t have any relevance at all.

Either scraping to transform the information in the page is fair use, and consent isn’t necessary, or it is not fair use, and the absence of a robots.txt doesn’t constitute consent. There’s no middle ground where a robots.txt can mean anything.

The locations of the license plates. Yes, people’s location history is sensitive, and can be used for a lot of harm.

As for storing the information, that’s where all the benefit comes from. To be useful, they have to be able to query the database for, eg., kidnapper’s car and track where they’ve been. Without that you don’t even have a debate of risk vs reward. It’s not downside outweighing upside. It’s all downside.

Most games are written for windows (or build the binary for windows), and many (if not still most) games with Linux builds run better through proton than the native build. It’s worth noting that it’s at least as common for games to run better through proton than natively on windows as it is to see any measurable hit from using proton.

Your limitation is almost entirely companies doing shit that should be jail time.

You only need Windows for gaming if you’re playing games that are installing malware rootkits. Normal gaming is fine on Linux.

It’s still a really bad option.

Really the only way to go is just accept that everything is a smart TV and pick one that doesn’t gate your access to an initial online connection. Or a “gaming monitor” that’s just a TV branded differently. But all the other options are terrible on a bunch of levels.