EvilColeslaw

Does the DOJ's opinion, binding or not, actually matter with respect to this though? Impeachment is solely the prerogative of the House, and more broadly Congress. I don't see how the DOJ as part of the executive branch can thus bind the House at all in this.

(Also worth noting that Impeachment technically isn't a legal matter -- it is a political process.)

It's an extinct volcano, so yes.

Because there's sales text in the "educational" article.

You should use an XMPP server that respects your privacy. If you truly want privacy and don’t want to trust any server, we recommend setting up your own server. If this beyond your technical interests then we can setup a server for you and hand over the passwords. If we setup a server for you, then you’d pick the domain name and get complete control over who can use it.

From what I've read this Marcel LUX III SARL company is also just a holding company under EQT. So nothing major has changed there.

I mean, Canonical is also privately held and not publicly listed. And it looks like this is the same private equity firm that owned SUSE fully before taking them public. (Marcel LUX III SARL is a holding company owned by EQT Private Equity.)

If it's not that feature, it's likely either memory tuning or battery optimization stuff. Some phone manufacturers set those values to levels that are more aggressive than they really need to be, leading to processes being terminated in the background when they ideally shouldn't.

It seems to me that if the point is to preserve the option in case of litigation: having the would-be electors meet, conduct a vote, fill out certificates, and hold them until possible certification by the governor might have been fine. This is basically what happened in Hawaii in 1960 -- the Democratic slate was only sent to Washington once certified by the governor.

Going ahead and transmitting them and purporting them to be the actual certificates seems like a fraud.

Okay, so this isn't a new law or regulation. This is the ESRB and a couple companies requesting approval for a new method of providing verifiable parental consent to be acceptable to use for the purpose of satisfying COPPA's existing requirements. From what I can find, the current approved methods of verifying parental consent appear to be:

• submitting a signed form or a credit card

• talking to trained personnel via a toll-free number or video chat

• answering a series of knowledge-based challenge questions

Instead this would be handing the device to a parent, they snap a selfie and it gets analyzed for age estimation to determine if the person providing parental consent is an adult.

Good or bad, too invasive, idk, not really making a judgement there myself. I'd imagine the companies want this so they don't have to have as many trained personnel and it's probably less likely to be a barrier to consent as compared to putting in a credit card, talking to someone, or answering whatever knowledge-based challenges they use.

When did the issue start? Did you install new RAM? Are both the new sticks identical or of mixed make? A new CPU? Did you unseat and reseat the CPU or anything before this started?

You tried different RAM? Was it properly addressed or no? Did you try the current or different RAM stick by stick to verify each one is working on its own and then in the recommended slots as per your motherboard manual?

These steps/questions are necessary to determine whether the issue is a bad memory stick, something funky going on with the memory controller wrt slots, timings, combination of different modules, etc, or even the possibility of a defective memory controller or a bent/broken pin on the CPU.

That looks like a snippet the system properties menu in Windows. It's detecting all of the RAM but it isn't that only 7.92GB is free -- rather only 7.92GB is capable of being addressed, due to something going wrong.

That's not a free vs used thing, that's a message from the OS that it can't be addressed, so something is wrong with the configuration.

Antitrust suits result in more varied options than just breaking a company up. Microsoft had to have certain aspects of it's operations supervised by the Department of Justice for years, and had to make mandatory changes with respect to browser bundling that only ended with Windows 10/11.

Intel has settled some antitrust actions -- namely lawsuits by AMD -- with money and cross-licensing agreements. They've spun off some divisions and operations over the years but none forced that I can recall.