The problem is, that is not true. I have seen multiple cases in which the information in an article is well sourced, in that the facts in the article are attributable to reliable sources, but the subject is considered not notable by many editors because he or she is not considered of sufficient interest. In some cases, the deletion is pretty clearly justified by a specific policy, namely that a person known only because of a single event is generally not considered notable. Even that policy is not a bright line since people known for a single event who have been in the public eye still have articles devoted to them. An example is Lee Harvey Oswald. He is only known for assassinating President Kennedy, but there is a lot of interest in him, so he has his own article, not merely a mention of his role in the article on the Kennedy assassination. Other cases are still more subjective.

One consequence of this is that there is a huge disparity between people in different walks of life. It seems like any band that ever got out of somebody's garage gets or any professional athlete, however minor, gets a detailed article, while people arguably of greater significance in areas that don't attract as much popular interest do not.

It is reasonable that Wikipedia should not want articles about your next door neighbor Joe, who may be a great guy but has not done anything notable, but the current policy is highly subjective and excludes a lot of people whom one might want to look up in an encyclopedia precisely because they turn up in the news or in a specialized area but are not widely known celebrities. The policy in its current form not only allows the deletion of interesting articles about people some people would want to know about, but it encourages unproductive deletion debates.

Well, ed is the default. And I still use ed a bit. But mostly I use Emacs.

I use Emacs daily, as I have done for 44 years. I use it for all of my programming, for editing flat-file databases, of which I do a great deal, for making notes, and for some kinds of writing. Even if I use LibreOffice Writer for a piece of writing, I will often draft it in Emacs first, then use LibreOffice Writer to format it. I find text-editing, as opposed to formatting, much more efficient in Emacs.

This is mostly the fault of the police department, not Flock, but one thing that Flock could easily do that would reduce this kind of abuse is to make all accounts expire after a certain period, say six months. It would not be a large burden for police departments to reauthorize the accounts of personnel who need access from time to time.

Why was this information on-line? Even if there is a web interface for submitting tips, that doesn't mean that the information should all be kept there. Pass the information on to the relevant agencies and keep it in internal databases with limited access.

So buy the machine via a third party to make it look like a private purchase. Maybe you need it for a union election or an organization with a lot of members.

That would affect the buyer's rights with respect to the seller, not not his rights with respect to the gaming company.

I wonder whether this is legal. Riot has the right to ban players who cheat, but maybe not the right to misidentify them based on the hardware they are using. In this case, since the game is free, there may be no contract of which this is a breach. In the case of a paid game, it seems that it would be a breach of contract.

I'm not sure this is a good idea. Are there really applications appropriate to a spreadsheet for which this is needed? I suspect that this will just make it easier for people to use Excel when they really should be using R or a database.

Not true. Islam forbids the consumption of pork as food and the use of other pig products, such as pigskin, but allows the use of pig organs to save a life if there is no alternative. Jews too may receive pig organs as transplants since Jewish law explicitly permits any commandment other than the ones against murder, idolatry, and forbidden sexual relations (adultery, incest, etc.) to be broken in order to save a life.

The user agreement itself doesn't mention fines but the Rulebook does. However, on my cursory reading, it only allows Kalshi to collect fines from the user's account with them. It doesn't seem to allow them to collect in other ways.

No, according to the post they are going to auction off the data they have stolen if the ransom is not paid.

I understand how the CFTC can impose fines, but how can Kalshi, which is not a government agency? Are users contractually bound to accept such fines?

Automated alarm calls are apparently another issue. I haven't seen good statistics on what percentage of 911 calls are alarm calls, but it seems that they are at least 10% and that the percentage is rising. Over 95% of automated alarm calls are reportedly false alarms.

Some calls are repeats, either different people calling about the same event or the same person calling when he or she doesn't get through. 911 also gets automated calls from alarms, some of which are false alarms. That's why, of the 1700 calls that could not be heard, they estimate that about 400 represent human callers who did not get through.