Several of the big auto-makers basically don't make small cars anymore except to skew their full fleet gas mileage - for a while, the focus has been on the SUV/Truck market, and those divisions drive decision making.

just want to serve five terabytes. Seriously, people talk about this like it's new, but that gag goes back to 2010, and 'That will be 3 peer bonuses' was a thing back then too - getting a lot of Peer Bonuses was more important for your career than actually doing the work, and people optimized their positions to ensure they could get them.

The main reason it matters is because Streaming originals can be nominated for awards in multiple award ceremonies, while traditional distribution can't. And there's at least some logic that the same piece shouldn't get a TV award and a Movie award - traditionally, if it qualified for an Oscar, it didn't qualify for an Emmy, and so on, but there's a push for Streaming Originals to be up for multiple.
I think there are better options than just excluding streaming originals, but it's not as regular dumb as it sounds.

Since nobody seems to be putting the actual facts as a response:

As part of an agreement with the power company, the city gave them the right to build a large hydroelectric dam on city property in exchange for access to an allotment of power at an extremely cheap rate. When they exceed that allotment, the city has to buy off power exchange, which is significantly more, accounting for covering storage, exchange, and transmission costs on the larger network.

The city very rarely (or never) exceeded that allotment before, and now is. Because of how the contracts are structured, that additional cost is passed on to all consumers on their bill - everyone pays based on time-windowed averaged costs of power over the month, not the exact real cost at the moment of consumption (this is pretty normal due to storage and variable rates per time block otherwise making bills goofy complicated).

The result is they voted in an 18-month stop on NEW cryptomining operations (existing ones can continue) with a plan to submit to the appropriate regulatory bodies a modification to electrical pricing that would allow them to place the additional costs from the Power Exchange on high power utilization businesses, rather than across all users. The cryptomining operations mostly seem okay with this, as the proposal still sees them get a decent chunk of cheap power.

Note that's 28% before taxes. Between State, Local, and Federal, figure they get $150k a year pretax, $100k a year post-tax, but spend $50k a year on their mortgage. That's $50k a year for ALL other expenses, and that number excludes homeowner's insurance, car payments, car insurance, health insurance, property taxes, electricity, water... oh, and food. That's why 28% is so important - you wind up with 30% on Taxes, 30% on Mortgage, 10% on a Car and Related Expenses, 10% on Home Related Expenses... and you just ate 80% of the yearly income.

Cali's actual total tax rate is a little higher than that, but you get the point I think - 28% isn't an arbitratry number, it's more like a 'this is a good margin of error' factor.

To play, you have to download a 5.6gb package from them. I very much doubt they're pushing a 5.6gb client package that contains none of that.

Blizzard own copyright over things like Quest Text, art design, textures, logos, map designs, and sound/music independently of the game. If they rebuilt their servers without using any of those, the case would be in question, but it's not. Even if purchase of a game gave you the legal rights you're implying (and it does not!), it does not give you free reign to use the remaining copyrighted content.

The second element is the question of abandonment. If you buy a copy of World of Warcraft off the shelf, and install it, you can still play it. That the specific version you want is not available doesn't mean the game itself is abandoned. Wizards of the Coast can (and do!) go after people who mass print for distribution their own copies of cards that are no longer legal or in print despite those being for a version of the game which is no longer in existence - there's no question that, even if they've effectively abandoned that version of the game, they still can control distribution of those cards.

TL,DR: Blizzard owns multiple levels of copyright on WoW and it's constituent parts, and even if an out-of-date version of a ongoing, consistently updated game counts as abandoned, they still have a number of claims against people running servers in a even semi-public fashion.

Assuming you mean Federal Debt, no. They're the largest single holder at about 19% of foreign held debt, which only makes up 47% of the total debt. It's worth keeping an eye on it, but they owe us about 0.85 cents for every $1 dollar we owe them - they can't play hardball with us unless they want us to screw them over.

Since they've done another round, I'll point to the Phoronix dev's actual testing where they're showing 10-15% under actual benchmarks in configurations that look like more like production to me. I don't see ANYONE able to corroborate even the lower 30% numbers people are throwing around without using fully synthetic benchmarks that do nothing but make system calls, let alone the 60% I've seen used in a couple of places (and here!).

I got no clue what they're on about - that's not even what the Phoronix devs are saying - See HERE, where they're showing real world, non-synthetic stuff at between 10% and 20%. They're saying they can produce some really bad numbers with synthetic benchmarks on extremely fast SSDs, which is about the worst possible setup for this bug, but under more normal conditions they're not seeing a large hit. They're seeing nothing on some older systems with spinning disks where waiting for the disk covers the additional overhead.

Your understanding is incorrect in general - 'Public Figures' need to have Malice, which normally includes knowledge of the false statement and intention to harm, but most companies do not fall under Public Figure.
For general defamation they need to have:
a) Published something false
b) Caused harm
c) Acted negligently or with malice

They didn't need to know what they were publishing is false, although that helps. They DO need to know what they were publishing things with reduced verification. Keeper contacted them repeatedly, and they updated the article repeatedly, so I'm guessing their argument is basically going to be 'They knew after our first contact that they had falsehoods up, and did not modify them'.

Define successful?

Do you mean 1.5 billion lost in a single quarter?
Do you mean losing 10% market share in a year?
Massive leadership turnover?

Such success.

The existing limits are pretty low in a lot of ways, because they're calibrated for maximum safety. There's also thresholds that seem to move from 'Long term small risk, body seems to handle pretty well' to 'short term damage, long term massive risk' to 'short term massive damage' pretty sharply - you can be pretty normal for a while, then have a large shift in risk.
As such, I'm not sure this itself is a bad thing - emergency responders almost certainly can handle elevated levels over normal with minimal health risks for the *duration of a rescue operation*. I'm just not happy it's coming out in a 'gut regulations' period, because emergency responders aren't going to *live* in those areas, and the nuance is unlikely to be communicated effectively.

Sure, e-mail can have malware, but who wants to bet maintenance agreements and business insurance care way more about the presence of an industry standard virus scan in the loop? Laugh all you want, hackers. It's not a technical control, it's a business control.

You're assuming the data is unbiased - one of the known issues with systems like this is that biased policing can lead to datasets that don't reflect reality. A common example is how every other piece of data we have suggests that all racial and economic groups use illegal drugs at similar levels, but when you feed drug arrest records into predictive systems, they tell you lower income minority neighborhoods should be targeted. Which, logically, results in an even higher rate of arrest in those neighborhoods, but means there's even fewer police resources looking at other areas, potentially depressing arrests. And when you feed THAT data back in, it reinforces the same patterns.

Existing police biases generate the data you're feeding into the system. Bias in, Bias out. It's not like this is a new idea.