>Iranian negotiators claimed they had enough Uranium that they could quickly enrich for around 11 nukes.

Citation needed. Steve Witkoff is not a reliable source, especially since Iran didn't even have enough for a single nuke at the time of last year's bombing.

It held the equivalent over 70 floppy disks, at the time of its introduction it was a huge leap forward and despite being proprietary it was such a popular format.

Originally SCSI and Parallel-port only (or internal), then it got onto USB.

Iomega also had the Jaz drives, which held 1GB. Hot swappable hard drives was a wild idea, the problem was it had a reputation for major reliability issues and high failures.

Good question, that probably should be addressed in TFA, but isn't. Have a cookie, assuming you're not blocking them. :)

The Earth was exiting a period of relative geological and climatic stability and entering a cooling phase, which would have helped strengthen the AMOC. This process was then enhanced by a large scale volcanic eruption, thought to be in North America, with the ejecta from that and a series of subsequent eruptions leading to a significant deviation from the trendline, a mini-iceage known as the Late Antique Little Ice Age (LILIA) similar to the Maunder Minimum, a multi-decade period of cooler than statistically expected temperatures (up to 2.7C cooler than average in European summers). This is reflected in tree-ring records which show highly stunted growth for the time, ice cores from polar ice cores, and some of the remaining writings from the period that describe widespread crop failures.

On balance, it would appear to be the case.

I respect many of those comedians for their satire, but not getting news from newspapers is a recipie for idiocracy.

"but labor is so insane"

I gather this is your fault

Man Who Threw Molotov Cocktail At Sam Altman’s Home Claims He Was Following ChatGPT Recipe For Risotto

“We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns,” according to the document from Meta’s Reality Labs, which works on hardware including smart glasses."

Because existing cameras don't automatically identify people in public when you point them at them? I mean, Meta clearly understands how it's different - they're trying to toe the line between hoping certain groups with certain mandates don't notice too much, but the glasses doing what other cameras don't do is obviously a part of the utility sales pitch - so why don't you?

The issue here might be that the hotel is legit, but their internal reservation system has been compromised. They get the booking.com confirmation, enter it into their system to assign you the relevant room, and the scammers use that info to try and stiff you. The scammer has your details, and combined with the fact that it's a fresh booking, a made up request for some clarity/additional confirmation followed by a request for money is going to press all the buttons for an almost perfect phish.

It apparently happens a lot, and it's outside of booking.com's control (although the hack in TFS is obviously on them), so all booking.com can do it advise you that they don't reach out view email or WhatsApp, and all you can do it pay attention to the booking details on the main booking.com site and only interact through that. Or use a different hotel booking site.

Don't try and report these to booking.com, btw, as you found out, they clearly give zero fucks. I had that kind of scam happen with one booking out of four on a trip (obvious scammer reached out on WhatsApp) and ended up going around and around in circles on booking.com to try and find a way to flag the fact that there was a compromise, probably on the hotel's side. After 3 laps I gave up, cancelled all four bookings, blocked the spammer on WhatsApp, and rebooked using a different agent swapping out the compromised hotel for another one. I can only assume that booking.com is definitely doing their part to ensure the enshittification of the Internet.

To be fair, the entire governmental apparatus of the United States seems to be going "Ideology? Super. Caring about reality? Fuck off."

Giving a shit about the details right now is forest for trees stuff. The electorate has handed over the keys to the child in the backseat, thinking, "Well it can't be that bad, and the adults were telling us stuff we didn't like to hear. Yee haw, cut those programs! Tax us less! Money is magic!"

No one is born a bigot. You elect to be stupid enough to be one.

It wouldn't matter. Poor people have far more children than rich people. Making children "affordable" is a red herring.

The real reason people stopped having children is because having children distracts them from their own selfish desires and objectives -- which is incredibly sad, because that's the path to misery. The true path to happiness is to spread love to others, and the most powerful way to do that is to have children, love them, and build a family.

Totally agree with the rationale for the blocking; no sane company is going to willingly publish info that could harm them. Can't really argue with that at all; their site, their rules, and all that. What the First Amendment says about free speech is regarding the Government, not public entitiies like Meta, so they absolutely have the right to decline to provide these lawyers with an online megaphone and soapbox to stand on.

On your question though, it's quite likely no one authorized them. Assuming you're not blocking ads outright, then any ads you do see are basically the result of an in-browser bidding war to see which company is willing to pay the most (still tiny fractions of a cent) to get you to look at their ad instead of someone else's based on the info Meta has on your demographics and interests. Meta has a demonstrably loose grasp of ethics, so if you are thinking they are vetting every ad's contents before it gets accepted into the auction mill rather than just relying on companies to comply with the conditions Meta set and dealing with any that don't if any complaints get sufficient traction, then you have a radically different take on Meta than I do.

At best, they've probably just changed the Ts&Cs to put a clause in preventing ads of this type, or blacklisted the companies that were pushing them.

Dude. 10% of the time on Windows I can't get shit to work right.

"On the other side are those who routinely outsource their critical thinking to what they see as an all-knowing machine"

I've run into these people, they're the worst. It was bad enough dealing with people whose mindset was 'If I cant find it on google then it doesn't exist,' and it seems these people have moved into AI and gotten dumber but think they're even smarter.