404s for me as well but im guessing https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/01/convicted-murderer-filesystem-creator-writes-of-regrets-to-linux-list covers it.

Ride me!

Star Trek: Enterprise.

It's an older show, and I haven't seen it recently.

It's been a long time...

To clarify, he is a world famous golfer.

It's like saying Tiger Woods is famous for cheating on his wife.

Michael Jordan is famous for playing baseball.

Babe Ruth is famous for the candy bar.

Arnold Palmer just happened to like lemonade and iced tea. It is weird what people are remembered for, but it's not like he was just a dude who ordered a unique drink.

Exactly! Education is important.

My issue with the film is the ending. Everything before the technicolored lights scene I really enjoy. While the ending is iconic, that's the part I find boring. (And as a result leaves a boring taste in my mouth after watching.)

It's the only job Bart could get since he was...

No huge announcements here, but a good recap and clarification of rumors over the past few months.

Superman trailer (teaser?) soon is going to be the big moment, looking forward to it.

Vance as president after Trump leaves office due to the condition?

For so many reasons Vance as president.

First, there is a zero percent chance Trump gives up the presidency. So the more time can be spent infighting, embarrassing themselves and getting nothing done, the better.

Second, Vance as president won't have the same level of cult following him. If Vance pushes Trump out, he'll make enemies. If Trump somehow leaves, the moment Vance fucks up the smallest thing, Trump will shit on him.

Third, Vance doesn't have the Trump "charisma". Vance isn't going to be able to convince people to follow his lead. Vance is a yes man, not a leader.

Fourth, Anything Vance does, he has to take responsibility for. If Trump is "in charge" then Vance can always come along later and say "oh, I actually disagreed, but I trusted in Trump". If Vance is in charge then he has to support his decisions. (And yes I know neither of them will actually take responsibility. Supporters won't care. But the margins that decide elections will and that's enough).

Of course that's all hypothetical and in the terrible future. Harris/Walz let's us avoid that unnecessary pain and chaos.

So first off I appreciate your "about:config" dump, that is helpful.

However, having ONLY that dump makes it difficult to actually diagnose your issue. It would be helpful to have an idea of what fails.

• Are you only unable to join meetings?
• Can you create meetings?
• Only audio?
• Only video?
• Are there any error messages?
• Are there any messages at all on screen?
• Are there errors in the JavaScript console?
• If there are a lot, can you compare it against the working vanilla version and see where the errors are unique/start to differ?
• When did this issue start to happen? (It worked a week ago, but not now?)
• Is your config based off a guide online?

Second, you have "media.peerconnection.enabled" set to "false". That setting controls WebRTC. Google Meet uses WebRTC. If I set that value to false my Google Meet meetings fail to load, it just stays stuck at the joining meeting phase.

So maybe that's your culprit. Of course I would expect if you've had this set for a long time I would have expected it to fail for a long time. Also both alternatives you mentioned use WebRTC, so I would expect those to fail with that setting disabled.

Of course if it used to work with that disabled then it's possible Google Meet changed and had a fallback no longer in use or something else.

As an aside, I understand that WebRTC has (had?) issues leaking local IP addresses while connected to a VPN. So I understand why you might have it disabled.

in my hardened config firefox browser

The only conclusion I can draw is that google is so desperate for my data that they refuse to service me unless I give them this.

What is your config? It's possible you've got things configured in an unexpected, but valid, way that causes Google Meet to fail.

How does it fail? Are there errors in the console?

You're immediately assuming malice, but it may simply be a mistake (Google's or yours).

Oh, a wise guy, eh?

Honestly I agree. If they wanted to bring Finn Jones back, just pretend the season 2 story happened and continue from there.

(Although I imagine if they bring any of them back they will yada yada yada all of their backstories. Netflix will be a different universe and in the MCU universe things were similar, but not 100% the same.)

Also with the whole cast, Foggy, Karen, Punisher, everyone.

Maybe someday Jessica Jones & Luke Cage can show up. (And Danny Rand, but I'm ok if we handwave/retcon some of his story.)

There are two options.

First off, all the current and future voting would happen as if he were living. No changes would be made to the ballots.

In the first option, when the Electoral College meets, they can vote for whomever they like (kinda, there are restrictions in some states, but if this option is chosen they'll sort it out.) The Electoral College is not likely to just vote randomly. What would likely happen is the Republican Party, and Vance would select an alternative candidate for VP. Then the Electoral College could vote for a Vance/NewVP ticket.

Of course that isn't likely. If it's a blowout election, maybe, but I suspect people will take issue with just appointing a replacement.

The second, more likely option, is that the Electoral College votes Trump/Vance and we all pretend both of them are alive. On inauguration day Vance will become the President since the position of president is vacant. Next Vance will have to select a VP candidate who is subject to Senate approval.

That approval could in theory be quick, but will likely last months.

If we're combining I'd say combine two weeks ago and last weeks. Give us the reveal and pause. Then do this weeks plus next weeks.

The reveal is a great time for a pause.

I wish your father was still with us. Correct!

Assuming I accept your premise, the premise of the article is that the actions are not being done by the company.

The key point is that Musk is at fault, not his company.

You can't just hide behind "the company" and do whatever you want.

At some point, as the EU is discussing, the individual is at fault.

So a company provides infinite protection?

"I didn't murder that man, the company did."

"The company paid individual X to murder them, not me."

No, that's ridiculous.

There is a line you can cross. Musk has crossed that line. Is it exactly written, if your name is Elon Musk and you own companies X, Y, & Z, and you perform actions A, B, C, you I'll be fined in this exact way? No. There is a grey area, and a group within the EU is allowed to make a more specific determination.

And do you know who agreed to these rules? Elon Musk. He chose to do business in the EU. He agreed to their rules.

Actions you don't like aren't corrupt.

Actions Elon doesn't like aren't corrupt.

In fact arguably Elon is the corrupt individual in this case and the EU is simply applying the law to the corrupt individual.