Wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the studios’ requirement - every big streamer I know of requires certain platforms for HD and higher streams because of the copy protection required.

Um, I never said it did. I said this doctor released the information to “own the libs” because he’s an asshat.

The worst part is that these weren’t even his patients - he just decided to share their private medical records to own the libs

The big difference is that all those exceptions only apply to an authorized party, i.e. a health care provider authorized to care for the patient. In this case, the doctor in question was never authorized - none of the patients were in his care.

You seem very confident in your answer, but the actual text doesn’t seem to match your assertions?

https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/breach-notification/index.html

There are three exceptions to the definition of “breach.” The first exception applies to the unintentional acquisition, access, or use of protected health information by a workforce member or person acting under the authority of a covered entity or business associate, if such acquisition, access, or use was made in good faith and within the scope of authority. The second exception applies to the inadvertent disclosure of protected health information by a person authorized to access protected health information at a covered entity or business associate to another person authorized to access protected health information at the covered entity or business associate, or organized health care arrangement in which the covered entity participates. In both cases, the information cannot be further used or disclosed in a manner not permitted by the Privacy Rule. The final exception applies if the covered entity or business associate has a good faith belief that the unauthorized person to whom the impermissible disclosure was made, would not have been able to retain the information.

Yeah, it’s strangely beefy looking. Giving off Yul Brynner vibes

No one seems to be reading the article - it was a survey of only 2,000 participants on a financial advice website. These folks have already made poor decisions and likely not experienced in managing their money. The usual FUD that the OP posts everywhere.

Ironically, at least when it was up for me earlier this year, scrolling still moved the video off screen

There’s a well known issue of YT slowing down on FF clients. It’s not a FF issue, it’s Google being Google

Running essentially the same setup including uBlock origin but without a change to the user agent string and have absolutely no issues either.

Wasn’t it in Early Access before? I think this is about it coming out of Early Access?

Interesting - I’m running the same driver version but on latest version of Windows 10 Pro. In FF, under about:config, is gfx.webrender.enabled or gfx.webrender.all set to true? If not, that might be part of it.

Weird. I’m on desktop with an RTX 3080 and both super resolution and HDR are working just fine for me in both full screen and not. Results are actually quite good for me.

I think the default setting for auto depends on source resolution and desired display resolution from what I can see, so it’s variable depending on how and what you’re watching.

You on Windows 10 or 11?

Wow - while I sympathize with their goals, this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Internet works. They need to restrict and govern corporate entities, not the Internet itself.

Much like one of the ways stained glass was colored in the medieval period involved adding materials to the glass that acted as nano materials. For example this one particular shade of red needed gold.

I think I remember this post - wasn’t this like an eight year old article that you posted to the News channel?

From a strictly moralistic framework, unless Putin has attacked you personally, it is in cold blood. We can discuss a global societal morality and what would be justified under that, but sadly the global community has let Putin be Putin for decades now, so globally at least, it could be argued that current power structures value the status quo over what risk may be inherent in going after Putin. The kind of mindset you seem to be displaying is essentially just a complicated vigilante.

The issue seems to be that you are confusing your personal moral framework with some objective moral framework that you have yet to define.

Would I be absolutely happy to push a button that sent a meteor hurdling through the atmosphere until it sandwiched Putin between itself and the ground? Yep. But I won’t pretend that it’s some “extremely moral” decision.

I absolutely hate Putin. But yes, killing in cold blood is indeed murder. If he attacks me personally, self defense is of course morally justified in the minds of many, but killing him before he can by brought before the international courts is assassination and killing him afterwards would still be murder.

Under which morality is murder okay? Punishment is an understandable instinct but not as helpful as treatment/rehabilitation/etc. and it never works as a deterrent or “correction” of antisocial behavior. “Extremely moral” seems to be a bit of a reach for “state sponsored murder”.

Just curious as why not Portal 2? That’s honestly one of my “chicken soup” comfort food games - Portal 1 is great but to me, Portal 2 is so much more.