Yes, and that's what they said. From TFS: There is no single, standard definition of middle class, or upper middle class, and what counts as a hefty income in one city can feel paltry in another.

For the comprehension impaired, that's why stated range of $133,000 to $400,000 is so wide. In one city, $133,000/year would be "upper middle class", while in another, $400,000 would be the threshold.

What will happen at some point is that sites that require age verification will require some kind of verifiable token generate by the OS-level age verification. Rather than the myriad proliferating independent age verfication. But it's a legislative ratchet that is unlikely to move in the opposite direction. If you don't want OS level age verification, then likely you'll be confined to the part of the internet that doesn't require age verification.

I was hoping at the bottom of the article it would say that Professor Utonium accidentally added Chemical X.

The fines should be proportional to actual damage caused (ie: 100% coverage of any interest on loans, any extra spending the person needed to do in consequence, loss of compound interest, damage to credit rating along with any additional spending this resulted in, and any medical costs that can reasonably be attributed to stress/anxiety). It would be difficult to get an exact figure per person, but a rough estimate of probable actual damage would be sufficient. Add that to the total direct loss - not the money that went through any individual involved, and THEN double that total. This becomes the minimum, not the maximum. You then allow the jury to factor in emotional costs on top of that.

In such cases as this, the statutary upper limit on fines should not apply. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that laws and the Constitution can have reasonable exceptions and this would seem to qualify.

If a person has died in the meantime, where the death certificate indicates a cause of death that is medically associated with anxiety or depression, each person invovled should also be charged with manslaughter per such case.

I am running FreeBSD with MATE.
Firefox seems to be using about 1.5GB - just running slashot.

49% of how much memory?
I am running FreeBSD with MATE. I am using firefox with two tabs open. I am also running jellyfin, and some other background stuff. And I am also running a terminal, and looking at "top" process.
My total active memory being used is 675MB. I have a total of 12GB Ram, and I have about 5200MB free.
Firefox does seem to be quite a hog.

Solar panels are the end product. If wars were to be fought, it would over the materials used to make solar panels.
BTW: I think almost all solar panels and wind turbines are made by China. Other countries could make them, but it would not be easy, and it could not happen overnight.

You mean the bird blenders that are also killing whales and dolphins?

As I understand it "renewable energy" means clear cutting forests and burning trees for energy.
Per unit of energy produced, burning trees is far more polluting that burning natural gas, or even diesel. Then you have the destruction of the forests.

I suggest:

First offence: Have to watch CSPAN for 5 hours a day, for a week, without sleeping through it - evidence to be provided in court

Second offence: Have to sing Miley Cyrus songs and Baby Shark on TikTok - sober

Third offence: License to practice and all memberships of country clubs and golf courses revoked

I find I can do everything I need with old and OWA, and OWA is only really needed for some SP/group stuff that will probably never make it into "old". I'd switch to Thunderbird, but that's coming up short in some areas too and OWA alone won't make up the shortfall there, so my current approach is the least painful for getting stuff done, no matter how much that chafes. I find "New" to be a confusing and broken mess that is missing several key features needed to interact with other Microsoft systems (FFS!), and have fed that back to Microsoft in no uncertain terms every single time I've found myself switched to it and have immediately switched back using the feedback form they give you. No real idea on the Store version as I've only tried it once in the hope it might do everything I need (it didn't), but I hear that's awful too.

So, yeah, GP listed three products, which are the "local" versions, then there is the OWA version, so Microsoft has four totally different products that use the "Outlook" name by my count. Maybe they employed a former cola exec to lead the product development, or something; throw flavours at the wall and see what sticks? Store seems to be the "Diet" version, so maybe next up will "Cherry Outlook" and "Lime Outlook"... Personally, I really want "Outlook Zero", which will be me uninstalling it for good once I can switch to anything else.

They tried that with Apollo 13. And.... that actually did work, sorta.

Seafile would probably work. Simple and fast. Not overloaded with useless, often broken, plugins.

There's also Outlook Web Access (OWA) that you use through a browser. All are borked in various ways, but the cherry on the cake is that most of them have some functionality that at least some of the others do not, especially if you are in an Exchange/Sharepoint/Teams environment where you may need to switch between different Outlooks depending on what you want to do.

Even allowing for the fact they wanted to rebuild "classic" in a more modern framework and shipped before it had anywhere near feature parity, I honestly can't even begin imagine what kind of decision process, or lack thereof, must have gone on in Microsoft to get them to this point...