It is not really new evidence its a change to the way the defence want existing evidence interpreted by the jury after they already came to a lawful verdict. If that was the way Rosendorff actually felt then the defence lawyers should have established that during disposition or trial. The fact it happened AFTER the trial either means incompetence by the lawyers or Rosendorff has somehow been influenced after the trial. The whole point of the trial is to establish facts and the fact is that those statements were made under oath and then accepted as fact during the trial. Trying to argue that the emphasis of the accepted factual statement was wrong isn't new evidence and isn't grounds for a retrial.

The time to address exactly what was meant by those statements was during the dispositions and trial where the statements in they way they were made were established as fact. Not having done so during the trial meant that either the lawyers weren't doing their job or some external factor has caused Rosendorff to have a change of heart since the verdict and wanting to change the actual statements. I would suspect some kind of payment was made or some other incentive/pressure put on him which really is borderline witness tampering. I don't see why the lawyers for the defence wanting a second go to address their failure to do so should mean a new retrial.

And now with added NFT!

Personally I don't get it.

If 230 didn't exist Twitter would have been even more justified in banning him and would have done so sooner because they wouldn't want to be held directly liable for the dangerous misinformation he frequently posted.

It staggering that after 7 years they only claim to have 300k users, and there is no mention if those are actually active users or just registered users.

Also how many of them were registrations for this new thing they heard about only due to it being mentioned in the press as part of their coverage of Twitter but ultimately will never use? Or forced due to the various EU government bodies auto-enrolling or otherwise requiring their staff to register?

Putting aside how I actually feel about the politics, companies and individuals involved this direction is contrary to actual free speech. Given that they are declaring the purpose to "to best protect Americans' free speech rights" I feel they are either woefully uninformed about those rights or deliberately being wrong. The free speech rights that they claim to be protecting aren't about private companies providing services to private individuals. They are about protecting private individuals and companies from interference of their right to speech by the government. Those very rights that any investigation would seek to override were there to be any actual investigation.

I get your point but "Works with Windows" was actually a Microsoft trademark (may be still) and you (used to) have to pay a licence to them and/or be part of a certification programme to use that phrase but my understanding was it was also fairly easy to qualify for. I also think it was for hardware rather than software. What you can freely say without any kind of licence about your hardware/software is that it is "windows compatible".

you say that but you have no idea how much one of these things costs to manufacture or how long they last for. While in a traditional turbine you can repair and replace parts it sounds like this 'new' heat engine would need to be fully replaced on failure. it may be 60$ efficient but if you need to replace it once a week that's going to eat into any benefits.

Also this isn't even new technology. They are just tweaking existing tech slightly for minor improvements under laboratory controlled conditions.

Just because the plastic is made from dead plants instead of dead dinosaurs doesn't aromatically make it better for the environment. I don't know which bioplastic Dasani are using but most of them are not any more biodegradable than PET and some are actually worse as the energy need to recycle them is much greater or don't have an active recycling scheme so always go to landfill.

Except if you actually read the first amendment 'coming up with' a law exactly what it restricts. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

I think "shall make no law" is kind of clear. It is not "make a law but don't expect it to stick if someone challenges it". While some laws are poorly drafted and accidentally breach constitutional rights, the act of Georgia Senate passing this particular law that clearly intended to restrict the rights of companies to control their own speech is in itself a breach of the constitution.

The problem is in the current economic climate most people will be happy to continue using their existing perfectly good phone rather than parting with several hundred dollars buying a new one, even if it no longer is getting updates. Unless they drop it and break a screen they will just stick with what they have. I would guess that most probably won't even notice that they haven't got a monthly security update.

...and i know someone from Microsoft that thinks your PC needs urgent repair.

Because the US Government officials saw an opportunity to make more short term money (either directly though the sale itself or indirectly via lobbyists) by selling slightly more of the radio frequencies than was appropriate or safe to the mobile operators at the inconvenience of existing users of adjacent frequencies. The existing users just happened to be the aviation and satellite operators causing operational issues for the latter and safety issues for the former and neither of which can easily do anything about it.

Capitalism at its finest.

I played Cities Skylines to death when it first came out but eventually moved onto other games at some point after the first DLC. I want to play it again however at this time the $80-$160 additional cost, depending on how much of the purely cosmetic stuff you skip, to get the 'complete' game when most of the DLC has been out for over 2 years is putting me off, and having watched some youtube videos it would seem like I was playing half a game without them.

Saying that, it's nowhere near as bad as some EA games like Sims 4 where you are talking $700+ to get all the DLC packs.

My experience is that larger businesses are sticking with the old versions with old licence terms and risking missing out on security updates rather than paying to use the latest version as well as moving away from Java technologies where they could. Oracle probably realised that Java is losing out to .NET and newer upstart languages and as they weren't making the money they expected to, along with losing other Java related revenue streams like support, certification and training as well as possibly actually losing money trying to enforce the licence, dropped the fees.