Maybe Angela could loan him a set of hers?

You mean you don't believe the Russia lies? Good for you, it almost started to sound for a moment like you were believing them.

If there is such a thing as the "global elite", then Trump is absolutely 100% one of the members of it. Maybe not a founding member, though he is old enough to be one.

DeSantis is competent when backed up by a like minded legislature. He may end up like Trump though, so sure that literally everyone in the world loves him to death that he's unable to deal with the necessary back and forth negotiatoin skills needed for actual governing with a divided electorate.

As a non-vegetarian, who eats some meals without meat, the idea of vegetarian meat-like stuff seems weird. I'd far rather have a bowl of lentils than a burger made from lentils trying to be meat. A LOT of fake meat really tastes bad. The old style Garden Burger was just fine, tasted ok, no need to go beyond that. The early fake meat hotdogs were abominations that gave an aftertaste that lasted for many hours. Are there vegetarians that want to taste meat? What's wrong with traditional meat less diets?

Beyond Burger isn't very good. Or healthy. Impossible Burger tastes better. But Impossible burger isn't healthy either. But neither are covered by this ban, because Beyond and Impossible meats are not meat. The ban is on lab grown meat, not vegetable matter trying to taste like meat. The lab grown meat will likely taste better but it's much harder to make.

Because the cattle ranchers lobbied for the ban.

California has over 5 million head of cattle. We have real cowboys over here, not like those eastern wannabes.

So why hasn't he protected the state from Jewish space lasers, or chemtrails? Why isn't he passing out tin foil hats already?

In fact though, the bill was promoted mainly by the cattle industry, not as a reaction to some mythical culture wars.

There are homeless people in Florida too you know.

Might work is not the same as being a more appropriate protocol. Bluetooth as a standard is clunky. Satellite to satellite communications is a very different set of criteria than any wireless communication near the surface of Earth, so why cobble together an existing solution? As for low power, I think Bluetooth is too high power for many applications I've used wirelessly. It might be low power for consumer use, or for devices that are recharged on a regular basis, but it's generally used because it has mass market parts available for it not because it was a particularly efficient protocol.

In space you're not restricted to bandwidths meant for general public use either; you will have restrictions while trying to avoid interference but those will be different criteria than on Earth.

Security experts love to argue. But this is a good thing about security experts! So if you say "I want an easy way for customers to access their records without the hassle of dealing with password rules or PKI", you WANT the expert who tells you that you're an idiot.

We had a security expert who'd regularly tell people (managers, designers, even executives) that their designs were flawed. They really did not like him at times because of this. He was abrasive, but he was also right. Security is not like comfort food, security is like broccoli and kale. Very expensive broccoli and kale. And executives very often hate that, they want a fast and cheap solution, they want security that can be bolted on at the end, not something that has to be designed in at the core. This is very often why many otherwise good engineering firms screw up badly on security.

Of couse, the security experts are experts on security, but they may also be buffoons about other things (UI designs, software designs, personal interactions, person hygiene...).

Also, security vendors are not the same thing as security experts. Security vendors might not even have security experts

To quote Lily Tomlin in her Ernestine the phone compnay operator: "We're the phone company. We don't care. We don't have to."

They treat customers like dirt, treat the need for security in the products given to customers as a waste of time, unilaterially and hilariously declare themselves experts on security while everyone knows them to be incompetent buffoons. So it comes back to bite them. "With all that we know about security" does not apply to Microsoft.

With the "eat your own dog food" metaphor it means that you should make a good product because you'll end up using it yourself, or at the very least you try to improve it because you know how the customers feel. Microsoft took "eat your own dogfood" to mean that they should learn to love foul taste of their own products.

My boss keeps too many open. It's Chrome and the tabs shink to tiny things with no hint about what's inside. Fiurefox at least leave enough that you can see an icon plus the first word.