I don't honestly think this new policy is that shocking. From the end user's perspective, messages (and files, etc.) on free accounts were effectively only accessible for 90 days. Slack just kept them around indefinitely in case you upgraded to a paid plan, in which case they could be made accessible again. Now it sounds like they're just reserving the right to eventually delete them -- but only after a year (a significant grace period given that, again, you can only see the last three months).

This really doesn't seem like that big of a change -- surely anyone who needed this would have already upgraded to a paid plan, and even if you don't, there's still quite a bit of leeway.

I don't see how "won't be displayed for non-business users of Windows 11" means "will always be displayed for all business users of Windows 11," i.e., there could be an option to remove or alter the behavior, with it simply being a feature that isn't available in consumer editions. However, there is not enough information in TFA to determine anything either way.

Wait, are there statistics pointing to Amazon as a "go-to" for toilet paper and batteries? I can normally get the former cheaper (per unit) from a local store, and I guess the latter works fine for common sizes with a trusted seller (e.g., Amazon Basics AA cells), but I've had the wost luck ordering pretty much anything else (e.g., a seller confusing CR123As for CR2s and coming in a random plastic bag instead of manufacturer retail packaging).

Not to distract from how awful the car-buying process can be...

Shocking: the "original source" is a think tank founded seemingly to advocate against protective measures for COVID-19, including masking and vaccination, and their only source for this piece written with similarly biased language is "someone."

Anker's explanation in the linked article is that this only happens if you enable push notifications and have images enabled for them (text-only is an option), and all that's (temporarily) stored is the thumbnail for the notification. This is understandable given that Apple's push notification service requires a server to send the notification in the first place -- though they do admit to not explaining this adequately to users who thought they were otherwise entirely cloud-free based on their settings.

I realize we're only getting this explanation from Anker's side, but it's hard for me to see anything nefarious going on here unless anyone has discovered data that isn't consistent with this technical reality. And again, it's still unfortunate if anyone thought they were entirely local, but it seems like that is still possible by changing this option (which they've also said they're going to make clearer).

Maybe as long as you plan to need it and do so no farther ahead than the shelf life of blood? The FDA currently recommends a maximum of 6 weeks of refrigerated storage and at least 8 weeks between donations.

So, it could maybe work for a one-time need 3/4 of the time if you plan everything right -- but probably not for ongoing needs, as might be needed with some treatments or conditions (in which case your own blood may not even be desirable), or if you happen to need more than one unit at a time.

Is the movie theater kind of expensive to get to due to being located 300 miles into space? :)

I think the issue being pointed out here is that it's simple to "undo" this process and obtain the user's "real" e-mail address (just remove the "+" and everything between it and the "@"), so it's not very useful for avoiding spam and whatnot — not whether "+" is valid (though I have seen the rare form that refuses to let it be input as such...).

The hope, then, is that Apple's process is not easily reversible — or ideally not at from anything external to their own system (perhaps a stored dictionary/map of random to "real" addresses?).

Only because it doesn't meet their criteria; nothing particular against WD itself. From a comment on their Q2 stats, where someone noticed the same:

This is the only thing I don't like about the redesign, either. (Yes, people commenting above and in other threads: you don't need to guess. You can RTFA and there is a link to the changes.) I suppose I'm in the minority in that I don't blindly maximize my browser window regardless of screen size but rather size it (and all my windows--maximizing everything seems to be a habit lots of Windows users have) appropriately for my screen size on that device and the content I'm viewing.

And I think Wikipedia chose a bit too narrow. But I'm sure I'll get used to it. Everything else doesn't look too jarring.

What university provides room and board as part of a TAship? The norm at the major public universities near me--and I assume most in the US--is that tuition is either partially or fully covered, along with additional salary (which most would certainly use for those purposes, but they're not "included").

No, Phoenix was more or less a fork of Seamonkey that stripped out everything except the browser. (From this was also born what became Thunderbird and Lightning.) Seamonkey has always existed in that form, originally intended to be the basis of Netscape 6 as the successor to Communicator, and still does. It's just a different project with, at least at the time, different goals.

Does your workplace not have an O365 ProPlus or E(nterprise) license that allows installation on up to 5 personal devices (assuming RDP into the work machine isn't an option)? I suppose you could just be giving a real-world example of why you do this in response to the original post, so nevermind in that case...

Does this mean Slashdot will stop using the second Firefox logo everywhere, the one from about 2005-2009? There have been three redesigns since, with this new one about to become the fourth. It's hard to say they're using the old one for nostalgia when the actual original Firefox logo would probably be more appropriate for that (it's similar but has less gloss and a slightly different fox--easy to tell the difference at any size if you look at the globe).

Technically, that was actually year-round Daylight Saving Time, i.e., elimination of standard time, not elimination of DST. But the first link suggests that's also what is proposed here (they technically don't hate DST, just the change--and so-called "standard time," in which we actually now spend less time of the year in than DST--is usually the one people object to). This would indeed make the morning sunrise later with respect to the clock, an issue in winter for many regions of the US, the argument usually being that children would go to school in the dark in the morning (I'm not sure the "going to work" argument would hold up since where I live, it's already dark after work during standard time by late November, so it's either one or the other).