Wow. The video in question uses Kamala Harris' actual video likeness. And it's posted in non-parody-only venue. Tina Fey's video was on SATURDAY NIGHT LIIVE, and it was Tina Fey delivering the message, not Sarah Palin. THERE WAS AF'ING LAUGH TRACK (live audience) It's AMAZING how utter stupid you /. posters are -- utterly clueless, and completely unable to think past "take me to your leader..." Gavin Newsom committed IDENTITY THEFT. He also trying to influence an election. He's also fraudulently representing himself as "Mr Reagan" to hide his identity while he commits this crime. Wow, just wow.

Wha??! "All of those factories that I was talking about regarding building electric vehicles and electric vehicle batteries, 60% of them are going into red states. So, you know, people in red states love their EVs, too, and are working at these factories," Granholm makes it sound like the "anxieties", connected to USING EVs, is shared by people of these red states, as an argument to say the political divide is closing. Um, no, try again. Red states have declining jobs, and often manufactures with large factories negotiate tax exemptions in exchange for bringing jobs into the state, which is why this manufacturing base is strong in red states. State like Texas, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, have seen 70,000+ jobs come in "forming what is now known as the 'Battery Belt.'" (CBS News). Oh, and have you looked at a political map lately? Red in the country's interior, Blue on the coasts. Large-scale manufacturing is generally done in the interior states for many reasons--centrally located, lower wages; so it stands to reason that auto manufacturing gravitates to red states. But this says nothing for "people in red states love their EVs".

Snarky comments aside, I think the "Internet" fell victim to greed. All good things attract exploitation, and the Internet's popularity served the same opportunity as did many things before it -- an avenue for business to sell. And so aggressively so that some content creators have dropped off (Tho I give a lot of credit to those who've weather the storm!) or given up their home-ground site to ride the wave on YouTube, Shopify, and Etsy. During the trend of using this great new frontier as either a supplement to brick & mortar business, or even a complete replacement, the competition that arose turned up the stakes of success or failure. Take the SEO/SEM craze, where technically-savvy people were selling their skills to draw traffic to customers' sites. And to sell advertising. They didn't care what your site was about/content -- they would pump-up-your-volume in exchange for cash. Smaller sites lost traffic, and some eventually closed their sites. Then there was "Social Media" bandwagon -- bundling services to draw users in, along with data-collection, to feed SEO, to sell advertising. More annoying animated ads, pressure to give up your private info, visitors began fleeing to what seemed like "bigger is safer" places like Amazon. Falling below-the-fold on Google search meant death. In the decades following we saw high hacking, fraud, abuse, and the average website builder decided that it's not worth maintaining a website, except maybe to jump aboard Facebook, YouTube, Wix, or some other pseudo-eCommerce platform that allows them point-n-click site building, in exchange for subjecting their visitors to hoards of advertising, data-tracking abuse by Google, Amazon, Meta, name your poison... (Not to mention stupid decisions by web-developers. Modal popups "Sign up to receive our newsletter! (give us your email address)", fake sales notifications "person X just bought product Y", now that we "apps" so devs are steering visitors on mobile devices to "install our app!" -- WTF -- some two dozen sites I frequent force me to pause as i wait for that dumb prompt to subside. Do you think someday some supermarkets will want you to create an account and login just to buy milk? And to top it off, many of those marketers are bad-actors. It only takes one or two experiences for folks to wake up and close their laptop. We also now see efforts to remove some internet giants' de-facto control of traffic and infrastructure, such as Cloudflare and Google. Soon we'll have fewer filters of those bad-actor's attacks, and with a high rate of AI-like tools coming online to fool you in much more subversive ways... have you heard there's a trend to go back to flip phones? Why is city sprawl generally so disorganized? Because there is no centralized, empowered control of planning and growth (city planning boards have less control than they'd like). And many would argue that such a body would ultimately become corrupt itself, and those who make this argument might point to Apple or Google. Since the Internet is now so many things, from utility to education to entertainment... competition is insane, and the result is that it's becoming difficult to navigate around those who pay the most to get you where they want you to go. If they won't come, why keep it? So the old Internet is eating itself. Search results crowded out by SEO, shark infested waters for consumers, fewer visitors to smaller/older sites... means the losers go home. Make way for the new Internet! Web 2.0 and 3.0 are emerging, and have been for decades. As John Gage said "The Network is the Computer", meaning that 'Net' is a wire carrying many protocols, not just http/s and email, but connecting communications of any type of payload. Content is being delivered less from many individual web-sites and from fewer service islands like streaming Netflix, Hulu, Prime, from your SIP phone, and from one-site-has-all like Facebook, and I'd even throw Amazon's general shopping in there because it's a one-site-serves-all-needs ordeal. In the simplest of terms, people aren't visiting your website because they're watching Netflix, or paying bills online, or any of many ways they now use the internet beside visiting single-purpose websites. And that lack of traffic is leading to a shrinking base of that type of internet use. And as Boomers die off, the generations replacing them are all on a smaller number of engaging (addicting) Apps.

Wow. From the responses so far I have to ask myself: "How young is the average /. reader?" Here's a basic lesson in business economic practices: Take all your profits (because Bezos has spent all he needs to for a few years, and he can get away with not paying shareholders, cuz yes he's that brazen) and invest them into your business (e.g. robot automation--things that will bring UP the profits in subsequent years) and in other businesses that are owned by the parent company, and then claim NO PROFIT in order to avid taxes. You all are are like "we're in a recession", "people don't trust their products anymore", "epic flop", "chinesium problem"... Wow, how utterly clueless you young folks are.

Ok, I confess. My idea of a super hero movie is the old-school Superman. Ya know, plausible physics (aside from the unrealistic force-of-a-locomotive from skinny little legs, and spinning the globe backward). But the modern trend is that all physics be damned, and fight, fight, fight, non-stop action. And the character interactions have become more "Melrose Place" quadrangle than classic Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson one-on-ones. I dunno, I just start to regret the investment of watching when I'm about an hour in and the story line falls apart and it turns into either a soap opera or just a long car chase.

"Audiences" -- meaning the poor suckers who pay for this as part of their Disney+ subscription because they have no choice. Or the types of people who will watch anything, like old episodes of Mystery Science Theater 2000/3000. I think Kevin Feige should be place in front of Thor: Love and Thunder, strapped to a chair, with his eyes propped open with toothpicks, and forced to watch it to the end. Maybe then, he'll change his mind.

I don't visit websites to look at white space. My wide screen monitor is so I can have MANY windows to different . The real problem is so many web-devs open ONLY their own site on their monitor, and then stand back to view it, as if their visitors are only going to view their site and nothing else. I get it -- we don't want to look at a solid block of text, but so many web-devs are jumping aboard the "clean-look" idea that they're making fonts tiny so they have more space to layout pages like a text-book. Next they remove menu words and replacing them with icons -- "Ooo gee, it's like I work for Apple!" WTF. Why should stare boggled at a bunch of hieroglyphs when I could have actual words? On the flip side, other web-devs are scaling their formatted-for-phone pages up to giant fonts because they don't want to learn responsive techniques.

Apple -- sheesh. No mouse buttons -- I wouldn't touch Apple products with a 100ft pole. Their UI is meh, but their file manger absolutely stinks. Apple users use one app at a time (I'm old, so I know, I've been there, been watching the evolution of MacOS, Windows and many unixy desktop env's for 30+ years), and if a designer is striving to be Apple-like, then I pity them. Have you noticed that Thinkpads and (mostly) Latitudes have kept their mouse/trackpad remote buttons and avoided the "click-pad"? That's because that minimalist trend is for people with "de-cluttered" homes--like living in a hotel room--not with messy workshops where shit gets done!

/. devotes 320px on the right to a side bar with ONLY a box with my name and "karma: positive". Idiotic.

So John Riccitiello's salary before was ($22M / 2.6) = $8.5M. That $13.5M could have avoided "Unity Laying Off Hundreds of Staffers." At $68K/yr each, that's about 200 people could have not lost their job in a recession. Why is John Riccitiello worth north of $1M, never mind $22M?! I for one will take a stand and boycott ALL games running unity, because if there is NO RISK for paying stupid money for executives, then they will keep doing it.

Yeah, I agree. Probably the real issue is not how much energy we add, but that cooling is stymied by greenhouse gasses preventing the proper cooling. Our energy use, proportionally, seems like a drop in the bucket, or ocean. Oh... and look what happens to harbors when we put lots of drops of pollution in it. Over time it accumulates. Maybe global warming is a result of a few years of higher than average volcanic activity -- surely we can't measure human's contribution against the heat expelled by a few mountains spewing magma. ?? Anyway, I like jenningsthecat's comment about drunken sailors. When you've got a lot of something, and it feels cheap, then use it like it's going out of style, right?

The Earth is being warmed by human activity. The oceans have absorbed an immense amount of heatwater has many times the specific heat capacity as air. We are now at a tipping point were the temperature rise so far is affecting weather and wreaking havoc. Prior to the industrial age where we drastically increased the rate of dumping heat energy into our environment, the earth was at somewhat of an equilibrium. Despite that Earth has a hot molten core that contains vast hear reserves, the earth's crust insulates that core from the surface environment. And the normal state is a cycle of warming (heat absorption) from the sun during the day/summer and cooling by the radiation of heat to outer space at night/winter. And it was in balance. (Long-term trends aside, such as 1000's of years). Burning fossil fuels both heats the earth, as well creates "greenhouse" gasses that rise to the upper atmosphere and supposedly reflect heat trying to radiate from the earth's surface and escape into space thereby "trapping heat". CO, CO2, methane, ozone... The heat from burning is the conversion of chemical energy to heat energy, so that is heat that didn't previously exist in the cycle. The same is true for nuclear energy. A GRAND ASSUMPTION is that climate temperature rise is mostly due to the trapping of heat by the presence of greenhouse gasses, and that the energy (heat) we release by our activities is in small proportion to this heat trapped (not radiated into space). THAT MAY BE A POOR ASSUMPTION. Sure, the basis of the assumption is that greenhouse gasses will continue to reflect heat back toward the earth over very long periods, so long as they are present... so we talk about half-lives of the gas molecules and whether solar radiation breaks them down. It's also possible that some amount heat conducts up from the earths core and is radiated to space... And it's possible that the flux of this core-to-surface heat cycle is large in proportion to the heat human activity is introducing. If this is true, the one might suggest that the highest affect is from the disturbance of surface to-space radiation than the introduction of new heat (from chemical) or increasing core-to-surface transfer (again, assuming a generally long-term equilibrium prior to our disruption of the cycle). But what about our ever-expanding population and infrastructure? If we keep building... and heating... and friction creating... AND puncturing the insulating layer (earths crust) and releasing this heat into the atmosphere, then we are just heating the sky and oceans by another source other than chemical and reflective trapping. If we take alternative "clean" sources of energy (heat) like nuclear and geothermal and harness to do work (heat buildings, charge batteries, separate H2O into hydrogen and oxygen), then that heat still eventually ends up in our environment -- Earth's thin skin that is our fragile life raft-- and disrupts equilibrium. And what of solar/photovoltaic and wind? What percentage of the solar energy is converted to electricity (later to be released as heat via friction) and what percent is reflected back to space? What is the ultimate effect of slowing the wind by converting it's momentum to stored energy? Does the wind carry heat to the upper atmosphere where it escapes by radiation? Do these "clean" energy methods result in some amount of warming? If we can can stop burning oil and gas, and eliminate greenhouse gasses, then will normal night/winter cooling keep up with the heat pollution we still add by green sources on top of the normal solar warming? We'll just have to wait and see...

Let me add that today 120,000 Russian soldiers were Doxxed, and earlier in the week when the army moving toward Kyiv learned they weren't on a training exercise they sabotaged their own vehicles. That didn't happen in WWII. Vlad Putin is as big a loser as Trump -- can't wait to see them hanging side by side.

Well, that was the 1940's. You can't draw 1-to-1 comparisons with the immense differences between these two eras in almost every aspect of life.

In an orange jumpsuit ... to match his complexion.

You can't try a whole administration for war crimes. You can only try individuals. This is the beginning of the end of Putin. It's happening in much the same way as it did with Trump: The man has been pulling bad shit for decades... gets it in his head that he's more important than he really is... pulls some REALLY stupid move... the World retaliates and cuts him down to what he really is -- a pathetic self-absorbed douchebag. With any luck Putin will be dead within a month -- either by the Russian people, by NATO forces, or by his own hand... just like that asshole Adolf Hitler.