Irrespective of school funding, none of this explains the difference in performance based upon social media use. Even if you bring the baseline down to absolute dribbling, this result still suggests that social media users will dribble more than those which do not use it.

Jobs did not invent the walled garden approach, he actually wanted everything to be a web app available through Safari, touting the idea of how the overwhelming majority of code should be ran via the browser natively, long before Google Chrome even saw a 1.0 release. I can hold many things against him but this was not one of his decisions, it is actually something that developers pushed for themselves originally.

Thereâ(TM)s FOSS and proprietary options out there which work across systems and will remove the need to pay every stupid service and website to get rid of ads. Dont pay them, just block their crap.

The product isn't illegal to possess or distribute, there's no army of officers confiscating computers for having illegal code on them.

it's only illegal to process other people's data with it without their express and explicit consent to do so. You can happily use all of Microsoft's products to process your own data (and personal data belonging to other people who have consented) perfectly legally. This means Microsoft is legally in the clear to sell it to anyone they like, as long as they do not warrant it as being fit for any particular purpose, the legal responsibility is on the user of the product (not the vendor) to make sure they have sought consent from the parties whose data they are processing.

In the case of police, they both possess and collect a lot of data *without any consent* as part of their job, which means they would be breaking the law if they processed it any manner not necessary for the explicitly exempted purpose of law enforcement. It's not Microsoft's job to teach the police how to comply with their own laws, as it's reasonable to assume that (since they're law enforcement) they should understand the laws they're enforcing better than anyone else!

NVIDIA cards seem to work well with Wayland now on both GNOME and KDE, the last major bug was the (potentially seizure inducing) XWayland problem where frames would desync in video games, making them flicker like no tomorrow and that got fixed in 57x.xx but 580.xx has some problems with GTK apps using the Vulkan backend still (even on Xorg methinks) but you can use EGL and everything is fine. Assuming you're happy with the usual limitations of no official VA-API support, no shared memory support and excessive VRAM use, glitchy power management under some circumstances (same as with Xorg) then you're good.

Looking at nvidia-smi output does show Wayland uses a bit more VRAM than Xorg but scaling on a dual-4K screen is so much nicer on Wayland (especially with KDE) and when running out of VRAM, the session doesn't seem to die (like on Xorg) but some apps will spawn transparent windows (not rendering but still technically "working") and others won't load at all.

There is no way to know for sure how many units that person actually possesses, and upon making the offer, one can always lie and say they have less than the total number for any reason, a simple reason being disposing of a non-functional unit in the trash. All a nice under the table offer would result in is a sale of the majority of them with a massive profit, but with a few inevitably retained. A surprise raid by the cops offers a plausible way for SEGA to claim all possible lost devices which have not already been purposefully destroyed have been retrieved and held in escrow, as so-called evidence.

The hilarious part now is that the police cannot turn everything over to SEGA, as the evidence is not SEGA property. If they have, they are screwed, as leaving the cables and other accessories gives all the necessary proof. If this person has photos of everything to document it all, which is likely, then things get even worse.

If the police have acted inappropriately and turned non-SEGA property over to SEGA by mistake, then a private prosecution will inevitably follow, and the police will not only be forced to offer a formal, written apology, but also issue compensation to a much larger value than the items themselves would ever be worth. Not all of the goods would have started life as the property of Nintendo, so the police cannot even rely on the defence of claiming they were intervening appropriately in the handling of stolen goods.

A big screwup all round and a huge violation of individual property rights in the name of large corporations will not go unnoticed.

How long until clones with added assassin teapot style functionality emerge, where one can unlock them using one or more secret methods unknown to those interested in keeping the devices locked up? The fix for this problem is to make teaching engaging and worthwhile. Perhaps a few teachers should actually bend the rules on PG content and hack their brains a bit better!

I have public IPv6 addresses for every device in my house, all of them are firewalled without needing a NAT layer. This is the Internet working as intended.

Police forces should run their own infrastructure, preferably using products where the source code is available, and deliberately keep everything away from the general internet except for a web browser and an email client, each inside a cheeky little isolated remoteapp. None of this is particularly difficult to achieve. If the data is sensitive enough that officers can only process it inside a station, it is sensitive enough that it should not be processed online at all. If it can be processed outside of a station, then things called VPNs exist, and systems can always be centralised using national policing resources at that point.

It forces non-UK services available to worldwide audiences to either discriminate between users by nationality or alternatively, to self-censor content with the threat of a fine or a criminal conviction for website operators if they do not comply. That is trying to influence how people run their websites on a global level, no matter how Ofcom tries to spin things, and the idea that any changes made only affect British users is bunk.

If you as a website operator are now processing geolocation information to decide whom to show content to, and you were not before, that affects everyone using your site, even if it does not inconvenience them. If you as a website operator start blocking more content than you otherwise would have, just to satisfy Ofcom, that is going to affect everyone else using your site too, even if they are not British.

To put things into perspective, you would be required to self-censor content which appears to show support for harmless protest groups simply because the UK considers them to be extremists, even when there is no legitimate reason to justify taking the posts down. That includes a recently formed group which happened to make headlines for a stunt involving red paint as part of protesting the Israel-Palestine war, which the UK has now listed as a proscribed organisation alongside actual terrorist groups.

Seriously, screw Ofcom.

If 4chan/Kiwifarms were to win, it would put many US based CDNs with existing contractual agreements into a catch-22. They would no longer be able to use the excuse of a need to comply with UK laws in relation to US websites, as a US court will have set a precedent that there is no legal need to comply with it, and thus no excuses to censor US websites, ran on US CDN servers, operated by a US CDN, on behalf of the whims of the UK government, or any other hypothetical future UK government.

This then puts sheepish third-party companies in the awkward position of having to justify complying with Ofcom requirements to the detriment of their own user base but not that of say Roscomnadzor or any other stupid government-related censorship organisation, and any justifications they did make, they would have to put explicitly in their terms and conditions for anyone to read, as it would form part of a material contractual agreement.

I hope 4chan/Kiwifarms set the precedent they need and I hope our Labour government here in the UK learns a very big lesson about who the Internet really belongs to, namely, us, the users.

They want the identity information for all software, not just software being sold on Play Store. This means software where no money changes hands, and which Google does not even supply, now requires identity checks. Welcome to the slippery slope where nobody can write their own code without large technology companies knowing who wrote it. If you want trustworthy tools like Veracrypt, BitTorrent, Gnutella etc. to exist on mobile platforms, you do not want this to happen.

There's a very easy solution to this problem, which ironically screws over the publishers far worse than general piracy ever could.

Any textbooks a lecturer requires their students to have should be paid for by the educational institution itself, not the students, for the institution to collect back from students at the end of each semester. The educational institution should purchase enough books to cater for the course modules, plus three, with one being destroyed in the name of producing a fully digitized (imaged and OCR'd) version, the other two are for the library to use as reference books.

When 'new editions' come out, said institution purchases just three copies, destroys/digitizes one of them to scan for the differences, and then either library subject matter experts or lecturers themselves annotate relevant updates for the set given to students (thus avoiding copyright infringement, but keeping the information fully up to date). The two reference books allow for students to have access to the unmodified copy for (you guessed it) formal referencing, should they need to. Any older editions previously kept for reference can also then be annotated and made available to borrow in the library, gradually building up excess stock as needed. As the changes between 'new editions' are often incredibly minor, and because many institutions are likely to be using the same books, this would very quickly become a collaborative editing effort.

When the stupid price gouged 'new editions' with minor changes stop being produced, and lecturers are finally forced to move on to completely different textbooks with completely different layouts, the glut of old books would then be donated to libraries around the country, along with the independent annotations, which can then be used to update any older editions in circulation.

As lecturers will always prefer consistency over rapid, major changes every year, constantly changing book layouts between editions would not counteract this approach, nor would discontinuing books faster (lecturers might even start adding inserts and otherwise "making do"). Even if publishers tried to charge more per book, that would just result in fewer sales to the people who would prefer having their own copy to keep beyond the semester, further harming profits. Instead, they would be forced to lower prices with the hopes that both the educational institution and students alike would start to regularly buy new copies again.

It is not what you are thinking of. Wine has had various GUI apps for various things before they even hit 1.0, they always shipped a registry editor, command prompt, various configuration apps and a control panel equivalent so that software which relies upon these things existing can work as before.

It is a simple checkbox to disable it on Firefox. Edge has the same garbage feature implemented, with the same drawbacks and since some folks raved about it, Mozilla saw fit to copy it.