I googled Pyhäsalmi Mine gravitricity "2 MW" and EVERY article covering this has also cited 2 MW.

Now, under Occam's Razor, what's more likely:

1. Absolutely none of the article writers have any clue what the difference between a MW and a MWh is because none of them remember any physics
2. Some of them could suspect that it's wrong, but an authoritative source of the claim wrote/said 2 MW capacity when they meant "2 MW peak generation" or "2 MWh storage" (I'd presume Gravitricity, but I'm struggling to find such a source, myself)
3. One writer miswrote/misquoted as per 2, and everyone is mindlessly recycling that original article's contents with no attribution or care.

I don't know which one it is. But I'd generally lean against 1.

Damn, Steamboat Willie going into public domain really has Disney tightening the purse strings /s

The FDA regulation on Net Weight is found in 21 CFR 101.105. In this regulation FDA makes allowance for reasonable variations caused by loss or gain of moisture during the course of good distribution practice or by unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing practice. FDA states that variations from the stated quantity of contents should not be unreasonably large.

While FDA does not provide a specific allowable tolerance for Net Weight, this matter could come under FTC jurisdiction. FTC has proposed regulations that would unify USDA and FDA Net Contents labeling and incorporate information found in the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) Handbook 133.

NIST Handbook 133 specifies that the average net quantity of contents in a lot must at least equal the net quantity declared on the label. Plus or minus deviation is permitted when caused by unavoidable variation in weighing and measuring that occur in good manufacturing practice. The maximum allowable variance for a package with a net weight declaration of 5 oz is 5/16 oz. Packages under-filled by more than this amount are considered non-compliant.

http://www.foodconsulting.com/q&a.htm

As a Bay area native, I've never encountered worse drivers than the entire state of Maryland.

All but confirms

So not confirmed

An API token is more secure than a password by virtue of it not needing to be typed in by a human. Phishing, writing down passwords, and the fact that API tokens can have restricted scopes all make them more secure.

Expiration on its own doesn't make it more secure, but it can if it's in the context of loading the token onto a system that you might lose track of/not have access to in the future.

Individual API tokens can also be revoked without revoking all of them, unlike a password where changing it means you have to re-login everywhere.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Lmk if you have questions, though.

Right?? To let your website be susceptible to that kind of act by anyone means that you probably didn't really care about security in the first place, so much as just getting the magic lock icon happy.

Right? Like fuck Google and all, but can you imagine how many absurdities would have to have happened in order for it to be blocked?

DAE enshittification bad!!1!

Others beat me to the punch on saying this is just worse WebAuthN, but there are some specific flaws that boil down to saying that this whole thing is, at best, totally inconsiderate of real attack vectors such as phishing

Online Login: On supported platforms, log in with your ‘Sign’ rather than your email address. The service checks for a corresponding email in their database that produces the same hash with the chosen algorithm/options. Services can eventually replace emails with ‘Signs’ for regular users.

Enhanced Privacy: Limits the need to share email addresses, reducing spam and data breach risks.

Huh? What does this even mean? How can you avoid sharing your email and replace it with a sign, if they need to check it against their database of... Emails?

Real-Life Usage: In physical stores, use your QR-art ‘Sign’ when asked if you have an account/booked at table.

Ah excellent. Someone can just look at a security camera or just snap a photo over your shoulder and steal your sign then. Because your proposal sure doesn't note any way that these are 1-time use only. And if they were, this sounds like an awfully inconvenient way of receiving a temporary number (which sites usually only ever do as a cheap/bad 2FA method/password resets)

Email Verification: Receive a unique link via email, confirming your email’s validity.

Oh boy, better make sure to not get phished! Or that the link is 1 time use! Or that you aren't being victimized by a MITM attack and getting it intercepted immediately!

go fmt has been a thing for almost 11 years

matrix-nio

Hey, I maintain a highly popular (if niche) FOSS library. Where the fuck is my big tech paycheck where they bribe me into integrating with their product?

/s Silly take IMO, relies on cherry-picking popular FOSS projects where you can see "the influence" of big tech, AND then No True Scotsman your way into saying that they're not allowed to participate in the development/influence of FOSS because... checks notes they're the ones funding the project/putting money in front of otherwise unpaid volunteers?

If you end up coming up with a better scheme for things that has the actual practical effect of compensating devs appropriately (yes, that means at current market rates or better) for their work, then please let us know so we can switch to doing that immediately. I will literally do anything you suggest if it would achieve that end.

No, it absolutely wasn't, as can testify anyone who actually had to work with it: https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/the-death-of-adobes-flash-is-lingering-not-sudden/

There are lots of good reasons to get rid of Flash. Browser makers say it's a top sore spot for security, performance and shorter battery life.

https://tedium.co/2021/01/01/adobe-flash-demise-history/

Usability means a few things in this context—simplicity, ease of use, convention, and accessibility. Flash was none of those things. It took the blank-canvas approach to creativity—which was great for the artists and illustrators that originally made up its target audience, but morphed into numerous other forms that it wasn’t necessarily designed for. It fell into overuse and quickly became abused by others.

I do think it sped up the demise of Flash on the web considerably.

That's unironically an innovation right there

So others have already talked about how great Star Trek is. I agree with them, but I think that literally everyone has missed the point of your question:

https://startrek.website

It's its own lemmy instance. It was spawned from the migration away from reddit, and it's stayed alive since. So combine an active former-reddit community with lemmy and a good reason to all rally around, and finally the final ingredient of federation, and the Star Trek related rooms will always be on every server, and they'll always be populated.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I think it's a bit distasteful to armchair diagnose someone you don't know, though

Texas is politically and socially against LGBT rights. Maybe not as bad as Mexico, but you are likely to get hatecrimed in Texas if you are nonbinary.

Thank you for actually attempting to answer the question instead of just spouting the knee-jerk reaction of "it's bullshit".

And yes, maybe it is bullshit. Maybe they'll never end up actually offsetting their carbon footprint. Maybe they'll think they are, but end up getting scammed out themselves. Last Week Tonight did a great piece on Carbon Offsets on that whole subject.

Yeah the headline is stupid bait.

They already built it. They're trying to contribute the change upstream.

Which is technically "requesting higher core support", but is a very obnoxious way to phrase it.