They're announcing now because they want to at least get a first round of that sweet, sweet investor (and probably government) cash coming their way ASAP! Who knows if they'll still have a "money is no object" buyer in a couple years?

Not quite. Streaming video typically begins with fetch of a manifest which offers several renditions of a given title at different encodings (resolution, bandwidth, baseline/HDR/Dolby Vision). The player selects an encoding that is compatible with available decoding features, resolution, and estimated link rate. It then pre-fetches segments into a buffer to cope with short term variations in content bulk versus transmission rate. It also can move up or down the list of available encoding rates according to observed transmission performance. On YouTube you can observe the succession of rate/resolution steps with "Stats for Nerds".

The large buffer is important for ordinary content, but introduces latency that is not compatible with realtime game video. A separate issue popularly termed "bufferbloat" also arises from latency introduced by buffering in routers and edge equipment.

(opens wallet)... "I see dead people."

My Samsung TV is a couple years old, but it has the option of defaulting to the last known input - bypassing their launch screen completely. If you use an external device like an Apple TV or Roku, you'll pretty much never have to see the Samsung screen again.

Nixon at typewriter: “Memoirs, by Richard Nixon. Nineteen dollars and ninety-five cents.” [ he turns a page ] “Chapter One. I was born in the house my father built” --SNL 1978

It sounds nothing like a war crime, unless it mains the people its aimed at.

Area-denial is not indiscriminate, and visibility is not a consideration that makes any sense whatsoever.
It's a directed energy weapon, and a non-lethal one.

As for the use against civilians outside of a warzone, are you suggesting that the Government should prefer the use of lethal weaponry against civilians outside of a warzone?

I'm not going to defend police use of crowd control measures, as I think in the vast majority of cases, it's used inappropriately.
However, that is not universally the case, and in those cases, I think we'd all prefer nonlethal weaponry over flying lead. Use your fucking head.

Eyeroll.

Adding "Department of War" as a secondary name of the department is dumb as fuck- but it did happen, and it's perfectly legal.
The Congress set its statutory name, and the executive *also* has the authority to name it however he wishes for the Federal Government.
This system is silly, and leads to dumb ass shit like the Gulf of America, but it is legal. We should probably fix it, so that we don't have to deal with this dumb shit in the future.

So while it is true that "It is called the Department of Defense", it's nothing but pure unadulterated copium to say "There is no War Department".
There is, in fact, a War Department, and it is in fact also called the Department of Defense.
Some, in fact, would argue that "Department of Defense" is the more Orwellian name for it, and has only existed for the list 60 years or so in an attempt at making US hegemony seem more benevolent.

Of course with UTF one can come up with fake sites whose URLs are visually indistinguishable from the real site.

That's one nice thing about a password manager (if the site in question requires authentication)... it doesn't fall for that.

I can't speak to all people, but I have firsthand knowledge of police pepper spray training, and what you say there is flatly incorrect.
This is the second time you've just made shit up on this article. Why do you spread misinformation?

Tests like these shouldn't be a "gotcha." They should be fair.

* Had employees already been through some basic anti-phishing training?
* Did the test include something that someone who paid attention during the training course would be reasonably expected to spot?

There is one other use for tests like these: To survey the population of employees: What % of employees clicked on the link, and what do we need to do organizationally (not "just for those who failed") to lower this number to something we can live with?

But it shouldn't be a "gotcha."

Improper entry into the US has been a criminal offense in one form or another since 1929.
That's roughly 100 years now, or around 40% of the existence of the US.

Not that I agree with the current enforcement status quo, we shouldn't pretend that this is new.
That being said, you are correct that at least some "illegal immigrants" are not guilty of a crime- as they overstayed visas, which is just a civil offense, not criminal.
That also being said, they are a minority of "illegal immigrants", so ultimately- your post contains some solid points, but is just factually wrong.

I live in a semi-rural area, which may be why I get good (non-oversubscribed) Comcast service right now. My wife is from a small farming area in northeastern Washington state - even they have had (non-Comcast) cable internet available for 15-20 years.

I'm sure there are places where Starlink was the first non-dialup internet available, but I suspect the list is smaller than you believe it is.

Seems like this pretty much, though perhaps the more interesting piece is that 'generate a bunch of tokens consistent with human output associated with the environment without more specific direction' influenced the models to have what seemed to be better tokens generated later when they had to now be consistent with specific scenarios.

Though I'm too lazy to read the paper and the 'generally beat' phrasing gives me some wondering about how definitive this observation is versus how much of it might be finding what they wanted to find in the results.

They can turn Ukraine into glass. "At all costs" means they will start and lose World War III because most of their nukes were spent turning every hectare of Ukraine into uninhabitable wasteland. But for the few minutes that Putin lives before the incoming missile vaporizes him, he can laugh maniacally and say "I beat Ukraine! Ukraine is no more!"

--
For the gallows-humor impaired, this is NOT a serious suggestion. There are no winners in a nuclear war. If he's even thinking about ordering a nuclear strike on Ukraine, even one bomb, hopefully one of his aides will be brave enough to make sure such an order is never followed.