I meant kill it by stalling it in Parliament long enough to make sure implementation couldn’t happen in time for the election. If the Conservatives won the election they wouldn’t follow through with implementing the bill.

The line is in the subtitles as "At least Z’s safe with us until we do.”

But what if Trudeau tried to recapture that significant slice of the electorate whose hearts he broke, by bringing back his pledge to reform our election system? Except this time, don’t just talk about it: do it.

If his confidence-and-supply agreement with the New Democrats endures until Fall 2025 as scheduled, Trudeau would have ample time to dust off all the work his previous ministers and committees undertook and get a bill before Parliament for debate.

The author seems to think that passing a bill is all it would take to implement electoral reform, but I suspect it would just be the beginning of a process that almost certainly could not be completed before next year’s election. The Conservatives might even try to stall the bill long enough to kill the whole thing.

I think he’d at least need to be clear on which part is a lie; did the killings not actually happen or are they not his fault?

With any tech that allows the same quality with less data, there will always be someone pushing to cut quality to save even more data.

Why are “addictive feeds” OK for adults?

Scrutiny!? Whatever will she do? (Tell Fox News she’s being persecuted, probably)

“There are so many other loopholes, we should focus on the ones poor people use”

Nick Fury was Black in the (first) Ultimate universe

Don’t forget that the $25k wouldn’t all be gains in the first place. If the investment had increased in value by 25%, it would be 20k base and only 5k gains; if it had increased by 100% it would be an even split. We’re talking about taxing a part of a part of the sale value.

Its just unreasonable to expect spotify to be able to afford that when they already barely pay musicians.

The audiobooks help them pay even less for music:

With the introduction of the stand-alone audiobooks offering, Spotify is now able to pay lower music-licensing rates for the music-and-audiobook bundle, introduced in the U.S. in November 2023. The 2022 settlement agreement between the National Music Publishers Assn. and streaming services includes a carveout for bundles (such as Amazon Prime and Apple Music + Apple News), which the new audiobook offering falls under. Such plans lower the mechanical licensing rates the company pays in the U.S. Spotify’s lower royalty rates are retroactive to March 1, 2024.

However, NMPA president-CEO David Israelite had strong words for the move when contacted for comment by Variety. “It appears Spotify has returned to attacking the very songwriters who make its business possible,” he wrote. “Spotify’s attempt to radically reduce songwriter payments by reclassifying their music service as an audiobook bundle is a cynical, and potentially unlawful, move that ends our period of relative peace. We will not stand for their perversion of the settlement we agreed upon in 2022 and are looking at all options.” The NMPA and streaming services resolved a years-long standoff over royalty rates with a Copyright Royalty Board ruling in 2022, and agreed upon a new rate of 15.35% for the 2023-2027 period.

Here’s the article; the link in the OP points to a discussion thread.

The chair ought to be questioning whether the company should continue to employ someone who needs that much “motivation”, not urging shareholders to give it to him.

The standard fine for violating the STOCK Act is $200, but frequently the House Committee on Ethics and the Senate Select Committee on Ethics waive the fee.

Craig Holman, a Capitol Hill lobbyist on ethics and campaign finance rules for nonprofit Public Citizen, said the fee is one of two reasons why the STOCK Act is frequently violated.

“The penalty is so minimal that these millionaire members of Congress really don’t care about it," Holman told Raw Story. “The second provision is the ethics committees are not really enforcing it or taking it seriously.”

So basically this “law” is just a suggestion.

Meanwhile, his classified documents case being handled by a judge he appointed to the court is somehow not a conflict.

I’ve seen suggestions that the AI Overview is based on the top search results for the query, so the terrible answers may be more to do with Google Search just being bad than any issue with their AI. The AI Overview just makes things a bit worse by removing the context, so you can’t see the glue on pizza suggestion was a joke on reddit or it was The Onion suggesting eating rocks.

Well, you see, they don’t have cash on hand because they spent it on stock buybacks to boost that market cap

This week they were even against energy efficient applicances.

Please make a joke about how Trump is trying to convince the Supreme Court it shouldn’t be a crime for you to have him killed.

And now that he’s back he’s only working Mondays, so he’s got less risk of exhaustion and new people still get the rest of the week.

Maybe the news about the Windows client changing DNS settings was too much bad publicity?

A VPN would naturally route all your traffic through a secure tunnel, but you’ve still got to do DNS lookups somewhere. A lot of VPN services also come with a DNS service, and Google is no different. The problem is that Google’s VPN app changes the Windows DNS settings of all network adapters to always use Google’s DNS, whether the VPN is on or off. Even if you change them, Google’s program will change them back.