Netflix and YouTube both use AV1, which is royalty free.

Woosh! Answer: Almost anything that calculates numbers, unless it uses a non-standard binary representation for the floating point numbers ;)

2.

Did that... somehow prove to you that sex was binary?

it is demonstrably, objectively, and simply unarguably not.
Deviations are rare, but to quote someone smarter than you- decidedly non-zero.
Sex is merely a phenotype. Biology will offer you no absolutes in this department.

This is separate from the conflation of sex and gender, though.

Gender identity is a tough problem from a public policy perspective. A lot of nuance is required to discuss it with any kind of intellectual honesty.

Incorrect. Somewhere around 19% of revenue is used to service Government debt. This is certainly an appreciable number, but you said, "taxes merely..." and that is simply wrong.

I think you actually just missed all of the context.

Ivermectin is absolutely used in humans.
However, since this was off-label usage, ability to get your hands on it were limited.

People were then getting livestock/horse formulations from coops and veterinarians. This led to the joke about horse de-wormer- because for a while, if you were taking Ivermectin for COVID, you were, in fact, taking a horse/livestock formulation- a horse dewormer.

There's some nuance for you ;)

This is the root of why you're incorrect here and above.

The vaccine was, in fact, efficacious at stopping infection.
For breakthrough infections, it was not terrible efficacious at lowering viral load enough to tangibly affect transmission.

Current vaccines are far less efficacious than earlier ones against earlier strains, but even today's 30% is enough to materially affect the rate of spread.

Incorrect. I clicked your link, and then searched for contradictory papers using the name of yours as my query term.
It's called rigor. You don't have it, and it's why you're constantly wrong in your life.

Here is the structure for an EU act, since you apparently missed your own civics education, lol.
Enjoy your newfound enlightment.

Incorrect. See linked PDF. See header.
The recitals are part of the regulation.

Correct. That should have been clear to you in what I said.
They are not binding directives- they are for the courts to determine the spirit of the law- i.e., they are integral to its application.

You literally don't understand your own justice system- that's fucking awesome. I had suspected, but now it's clear as day for everyone to see. I thank you for that.

Apparently it's around $4 per device. The margins are thin on their low end models, and they are greedy, so I guess $4 is too much for a feature that few people care about or will notice not being available. Anyone who wants to do H.265 encoding will probably be looking at the higher end models anyway.

The real blame here is on the patent holders. AV1 is the solution for everyone else.

It's worse, they recommend software for encoding as well.

It's because they have to pay licence fees for HEVC. Most streaming services use AV1 now, which is free and supported.

He clearly wasn't that good, or he wouldn't have been caught. These amateurs don't seem to understand that they way to do this is to make the system so complex and reliant on you doing certain undocumented actions, that if they fire you it will all collapse on its own. Then you can't be accused of causing damage, because you didn't, you just walked away as asked. It's not your fault that they didn't recognize how essential your services were, or pay you to do a proper rebuild and handover.

Strawman, and a stupid one at that.

80% of the fucking internet have these pop-ups, because completely non-stalking behavior is included in the not strictly necessary behavior.
This means that basic features that need to be opt-in need to be implemented as a checkbox when the feature is enabled, or just a catch-all when you first come to the site.
The latter is easier than the former, and so that is what people do.
Accusing the entirety of the internet of stalking you is the dumbest fucking shit I've heard today.

I ignored it, because I had proven my point- that you're full of shit.

Hell, you couldn't even quote the person you cited as evidence that you weren't full of shit correct.
You quoted them as saying:

What they actually said:

Now, what do you think the relevant material difference in your misquote is?
I'll give you a hint: At the time the person said it, what they said was true, and the evidence backed it up.
More nuance was required (and provided) later as the picture became clearer, and as dipshits like you tried to play syntax games with the statements.

This is ignoring that you're misconstruing breakthrough infections with the efficacy of the vaccine in stopping infection altogether.

Wrong answer, dipshit.