um, can those two nouns be used interchangeably any more in any context?

And it's not getting any worse so far as results that don't use ML for the encoding process, but perhaps not better. But with ML acceleration becoming more and more common, using ML is a sensible option for many end users, provide they don't abandon non-ML options. And I don't think they will. Quite possibly things can't be improved much except by using ML. Eventually ML acceleration will be as ubiquitous as FP arthmetic.

Are canned and/or frozen veggies considered ultraprocessed?

Here is the objectively correct way it should work: every customer is given the same opportunity to have the same, exact service and/or product, for the same price, with the same ELUA. There should be no difference whatsoever between how any two customers are treated.

The trailer makes it seem like an absolutely miserable experience, and then I noticed it's adam sandler which only confirmed that suspicion.

other than creating impossible-to-find bugs

The playtesters who have been invited to try many hours of supervised playtest all report that the game is pretty devoid of content beyond the core mechanics. It's missing a ton of stuff that their own AAA title AC:BlackFlag already had, or they have locked it away during the press playtest sessions. Of course playtesting can't cover storyline or plot development, but what they did cover was a janky and mostly boring repetitive mess.

Apple fought and fought Right to Repair for years. They lobbied carefully in parallel to write something that would be weak as soggy toast, get approved in legislatures, and they could then come out crowing to the incredulous iZombies that Apple supports Right to Repair. No, they supported exactly the weak laws they helped write, and nothing more.

When anyone else talks about "well, Right to Repair means NOT using your parts, or NOT asking your permission to use your parts, or NOT paying you through the nose to use third-party tools, or NOT paying you through the nose to use third-party parts," then you can really see how Apple feels about anything that is really about your right to repair what you own. Or think you own. Or was told you own.

It has been an open secret in the cryptography community that Hal Finney was the designer of BitCoin from the very start. Hal died in 2014. Or at least he was frozen in liquid nitrogen so not talking either way.

Besides being the first person to be involved in BTC who didn't hide behind a pseudonym, Hal published a paper that describes essentially the whole BitCoin scheme two years before BTC was launched. And Hal never once accused Satoshi of stealing his work.

The reason Hal had to hide behind Satoshi is simple: The Harber Stornetta patent didn't expire until about 9 months after BTC launched. That covers the notion of the hash chain. There is absolutely no way anyone working in the field did not know about that patent or its imminent expiry. Hal certainly did because I discussed it with him before BTC was launched.

So the big question is why BTC was launched when it was, why not wait 9 months to have free and clear title? Well, Hal got his terminal ALS diagnosis a few weeks prior: He was a man in a hurry.

Having launched prematurely, Hal had to wait six years after the original expiry of the patent term to avoid a lawsuit over the rights to BTC from Surety. He died before that happened.

Oh and I have absolutely no doubt Hal mined the genesis blocks straight into the bit bucket. The key fingerprint is probably the hash of some English language phrase.

You do know Sudo was invented on BSD Unix back in 1980 according to the man pages.

The real inventor of BitCoin wrote a paper describing the architecture two years earlier under his own name, Hal Finney. He got a terminal diagnosis of ALS a few months before he launched the BitCoin service, the pseudonym being necessary at the time because of the Haber-Stornetta patent on the BlockChain.

No, Hal, did not keep the coins. He invented BitCoin because he was a crank with weird ideas about inflation, not to get rich. Mining the coins and keeping them would have been a betrayal of his principles.

The proof of this is given by the fact that Hal did not in fact get rich from BTC despite being the ''second' person to join the project. Nor did Hal ever complain that Satoshi took the credit for what was very clearly his work. If Hal had been just another person coming along, there would have been every reason to keep the cash.

And we do in fact know Hal ran mining servers from the start and that he ended up in serious financial trouble due to his ALS. The freezing his head thing came from donations.

Craig Wright does seem to be the last of the three early advocates alive but that doesn't make him Satoshi. Wright has never shown the slightest sign of being the sort of person who builds such a thing and in any case, Hal's name is on the much earlier paper.

Linux Mint is stable and closest to Ubuntu with no snap

I don't have a Macbook, but the thing I mist about optical drive bays is not the optical disc support, but the fact that you can remove the optical drive and stick a big HDD or second SATA SSD in there. Especially the Lenovo T420 where they have a special system that allows you to remove and interchange caddies like game cartridges.