But one of the major improvements in recent TVs is HDR with its associated high brightness. Projectors are far behind in those specs. But I agree that it would be great to be able to buy dumb TVs again.

People are going to move away from Reddit if too many of the posts and comments are made by bots. They're caught in a Catch 22 situation.

Extradition treaties require that the alleged offence be a crime in both countries. If the UK tried for extradition in this case, 4Chan's lawyers would have it laughed out of the US court which has to decide whether to allow the extradition.

Another important reason to sue the city rather than the individuals is that the city has a much greater capacity to pay.

Software does require on-going effort to remain in the market, even if no new features are added: security vulnerabilities come to light; bugs are fixed; support for new or updated operating systems and other software and hardware is added; etc. In fact I'd prefer that developers spent more time fixing existing issues rather than adding new features because, inevitably, adding new features adds new bugs, often faster than they can fix the old ones. It sounds great to say software shouldn't have any vulternabilities or bugs, so the vendors should fix these for free, but let's be realisitic.

So I don't see software subscriptions models as being inherently bad. The problem with Adobe is that the price is so extremely high. It seems like they're trading on their dominant market position to extract all they can from their customers, rather than charging what it costs to maintain their products plus a fair margin. They're breeding competitors and eventually it will bite them.

Projected cinema is incapable of matching the high dynamic range of modern TVs and modern movies. Most cinemas are still only 2K, but their lack of HDR is much more obvious and important than their lack of 4K. The home viewing experience is substantially better in every way but screen size, and this is reducing the incentive to patronise cinemas. Apparently there are a very few cinemas with huge, direct-view LED screens which are expensive, even by the standards of commercial cinemas. There needs to be a faster shift in this direction if cinemas are to survive.

One of the big problems is that the live action was filmed at 24fps but the CGI was created at 30fps. This makes it very hard to merge the two without one or the other stuttering. It didn't look so bad on TV when everyone (in NTSC countries) was used to films being shown with 3:2 pull-down but the Blu-ray version instead badly converts the original CGI to 24fps.

My TV has several different images of paintings and it cycles between them, presumably to reduce this issue. They also seem to be displayed with relatively low brightness, which greatly reduces the potential for burn-in. But, yes, there's no way I want to burn electricity and wear out my expensive TV to display images constantly when people mostly aren't even watching it. I guess LG doesn't mind, and having me buy a new model sooner is a plus for them.

There's plenty of evidence that they're lying or, most charitably, deluded. They say it in the present tense but it seems clear that the US military was only in the country for hours. If they were still there, there would be ongoing fighting, unless you claim some conspiracy and cover-up involving the current Venezuelan government to hide the fact that they're under US control. Are you really surprised that Trump is lying about this?

It's true that the US government is in a good position to know the truth on this but, equally, they're also the ones with the strongest motives to lie about it. Seek independent sources of information.

My 2019 LG OLED pretends to be a painting when it has no input, picture frames and all. You can have it do the same instead of turning off properly but that just seems insane to me. My more recent LG OLED monitor is the same. This isn't some recent catch-up from LG. The marketing feels like they're doing it to highlight the image quality and HDR of their high-end displays.

This is not the legal position in Australia. It's the right of the employer to set policy on how tips are handled. In many venues, staff can keep their cash tips and in others they'll be pooled and shared between the staff, but a business can also require that all tips, cash and electronic, go to the business itself. Of course there's the practical issue that staff can fairly easily pocket cash without anyone finding out, but being caught is a serious matter.

You can find idiots spouting all kinds of nonsense; don't let them influence your thinking.

Businesses are free to refuse customers.

In this case, SpaceX became so successful at launching satellites that it ran out of customers; there just weren't enough satellites that needed launching. So they created StarLink to become their own best customer. Getting orders from StarLink competitors is the icing on the cake.

Also, having competition helps keep antitrust action away. Remember when Microsoft bailed out Apple?

If I recall from the Netflix documentary, Stockton Rush was insistent that the word "passenger" was never used and that OceanGate's paying customers were instead "mission specialists". This was the legal work-around that allowed the company to avoid government regulations. You'd think that his wealthy customers would have been savvy enough to understand what was going on, not least when signing the required waivers. What they might not have known was that the Titan was not registered, not even in the Bahamas, despite OceanGate being registered there.

Personally, I've sailed in a replica of a historical vessel not rated to carry passengers; it lacked multiple water-tight compartments for a start. I was "volunteer crew" and had to obtain the maritime certificate required to work aboard ships, including passing written and practical courses. While it seemed to me that safety was taken very seriously, I was aware when I signed on that there were greater risks than on a passenger vessel. Professional mariners aboard non-passenger vessels know the standards are lower, but there are still standards for registered vessels.

From an IT perspective there was neither authentication nor authorisation. Legally, however, many jurisdictions make it illegal to access data without being authorised to do so and, by "authorised", they mean legally authorised. The fact that there was no security mechanism isn't going help any person found to have accessed these data; they're hackers in the eyes of the law. Obviously companies like it this way; for them, it's not a bug but a feature.