grue

(Maybe a bit later since I still watched Enrerprise…)

No, Enterprise firmly and definitely fits into category 2. It had a weird theme song and some people didn't like how it shoehorned an extra ship named Enterprise into the list, but other than that it was Berman-era Trek, through and through.

Most appearances in general still belongs to Our Man Dorn.

Does the voice of the ship's computer not count as an "appearance?"

Same reason I roll my eyes whenever somebody starts talking about Trump and "kompromat."

It's not that I don't think Putin has it, it's that I don't think Putin needs it.

The irony is that they'll do so while simultaneously having "MAGA" emblazoned across their foreheads.

In 2011, the Guinness Book of World Records recognized Bill Blair as the record holder in the category of "The Most Special Effect Make-Up Characters Portrayed in a Career" with 202 different characters.

Well that's pretty neat!

That said, I'm not sure uncredited non-speaking roles are really comparable to guest-starring roles.

they are literally ATTEMPT THE STEAL activists.

Even this implies too much legitimacy. They are Attempt The Steal CONSPIRATORS.

Sure, the abortion issue will result in Democrats getting more actual votes. However:

Okay, but (as per the article) the allegedly-"top" court that made the ruling, the European Union’s General Court (EGC), is not the same as the court that the lawsuit would be appealed to, the European Court of Justice (ECJ). How can the EGC be the "top" court if the ECJ is above it?

Besides, the bottom line is that saying "the top court ruled on this" strongly implies that it's a final decision, but that's not the case here. Regardless of the details of which court does what, that's misleading and therefore clickbait. Don't write headlines telling me it's hopeless when there's actually hope!

As a Georgian who has been closely following this ratfuckery for some time now, I think the odds of Georgia's actual popular votes getting (a) accurately counted and (b) correctly certified and translated into Electoral College votes is are a toss-up, at best. I think it's alarmingly likely that either (a) so many voters get suppressed and so many ballots get illegitimately thrown out for bullshit reasons like "signature mismatches" that it changes the popular vote outcome or (b) MAGA poll watcher sabotage/refusals to certify/fake electors/bad-faith lawsuits result in SCOTUS or some other MAGA-sabotaged court either invalidating GA's EC votes entirely or using the manufactured uncertainty as an excuse to assign them to the candidate who, in actuality, got fewer popular votes.

Voting is absolutely necessary, but also woefully insufficient. We desperately need to be preparing to force the MAGA conspiracists who have infiltrated the elections bureaucracy to do their jobs properly and organizing massive counter-protests. Perhaps most importantly, we need to be doing this despite how the MAGA election deniers have poisoned the well against acknowledging real election fraud, and we need to get over the idea that it's somehow hypocritical or uncouth to use some of the same tactics they've been using to undermine democracy in order to save it.

I believe we can beat the fascists, but in order to do so we have to actually be willing to do what's necessary to beat the fascists, and I have seen precious little evidence that there's any sort of widespread movement towards that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawfare

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/22/america-fascism-legal-phase

Wait, how is this a "top court" if the decision is still appealable? Seems like a clickbait headline to me.

In general, you're not wrong in your summary of how the Web developed. The problem is, though, that you seem to be assuming that since the Web did develop that way, that it had to develop that way. I disagree with that: I think other possibilities existed and might have been viable or even dominant if the dice of fate/random chance had happened to land differently. (And I think that they would've been much more likely to be viable or even dominant if some of the regulatory environment had been different, e.g. if residential ISPs hadn't been allowed to get away with things like drastically asymmetric connections and prohibiting users from running servers. More enforcement of accessibility and standards compliance, instead of tolerating companies deliberately abusing things like Flash and Javascript to unduly restrict users, would've also gone a long way.)

and make it look/function the same across different screens and different brands of computers.

That was not only totally optional, but also arguably considered harmful. HTML was intended to leave presentation up to the client to a certain extent, by design. Megalomaniacal marketers and graphic designers demanding to have pixel-perfect control and doing a bunch of dirty hacks (e.g. abusing <table> for page layout instead of tabular data) to achieve it were fundamentally Doing It Wrong.

But I do wonder if anyone is thinking about how foss replacements and competition will gain any ground because honestly they either pay the bills with donations and ads, or they charge a subscription fee because these things cost money to run.

Or they implement a distributed architecture that offloads the bandwidth and storage costs to users directly, a la Bittorrent, IPFS, Freenet, etc.