Most election data comes from the Associated Press, but I don’t see a place to purchase API access, may only be available to news orgs.

https://developer.ap.org/ap-elections-api/

A reddit poster had some JSONs from New York Times four years ago for 2020 but I’m not sure if you can make them work for 2024.

https://old.reddit.com/r/rstats/comments/jo1yuw/us_election_results_api/gmnxfz3/

sudo apt-get install intel-media-va-driver-non-free

Video will still be clunky but less clunky.

EDIT: I’m so happy.

Good old six month old articles getting reposted, yup, yup, yup.

I’m a Linux user and I think the conversation should be:

More than half (over 60% ackshually) of Windows PCs in service are still Windows 10. Windows 11 barely cracks 34%.

People should boycott this and demand that Microsoft offer long-term support for Windows 10 like they did Windows 7 and stop trying to force Windows 11 on consumers through dark patterns like this. We have a year to make a huge about this deal in public spaces. This is the kind of thing the reddit userbase used to excel at getting word out about. Enough public outcry over a year could force the issue.

They made their own bed with the arbitrary TPM 2.0 requirement. They can drop that and they’d probably have more adoption of 11 overnight. These are business choices Microsoft is making, while ignoring the reality on the ground for a lot of people who never upgraded to something with a TPM 2.0 chip. It’s a choice to and a dark pattern to push them to upgrade.

I am kind of sick of the Linux users acting superior instead of being helpful to people stuck with Windows due to work environments, too.

feels like the deal of the century.

For Microsoft, sure. If they capture all Windows 10 machines, they’re in for a $21 billion payday. If they get half of them, $10 billion. A quarter, $5 billion. An eighth, $2.5 billion.

Your $30 in aggregate is only a deal for Microsoft. They’ll ask for another $30 a year after that and now you’ve normalized paying for security updates.

I like all the comments ready to take a fisting in the ass from Microsoft just to keep Windows 10.

If you raised a fucking stink instead of taking this shitty deal, they may be forced to keep supporting it for free anyway like they did with Windows 7.

They’ve really got you guys cowed into paying for the convenience of getting fucked, don’t they?

This is a company with a market cap of $3.04 trillion and you guys are just gonna bend over and take it for $30 bucks? Wew lad. They don’t need your fucking thirty dollars, and you fucking know it. It’s a god damned shakedown.

Microsoft: Wouldn’t it be a shame if your computer was somehow insecure and got hacked?

Sounds like a Mafioso showing up for protection money to me.

EDIT: There’s still about 700 million Windows 10 PC’s still on the market. If every single existing Windows 10 machine paid for this service, Microsoft would make $21 billion dollars next year off this alone. It’s a shakedown, do the fucking math. (700,000,000 x $30 = $21,000,000,000) Even if only half do it, it’s still a cool $10.5 billion.

EDIT II: This also normalizes the practice of paying for security updates for consumers. You really want to take us down that path where every security update is paid?

But seriously, I mean, this is the company that was hiding their tax dodging behind Tim Cook coming out as gay and making a huge deal about how he was “brave” and a “hero” when he has a fucking team of private security protecting him at all times as if that wasn’t gross.

I was trying to figure out why they’re making such a big deal about adding it since men veteran suicides still massively outpace women veteran suicides and I stumbled on this note:

• From 2020 to 2021, the age-adjusted suicide rate increased 6.3% among Veteran men and 24.1% among Veteran women. From 2020 to 2021, the age-adjusted suicide rate increased 4.9% among non-Veteran men and 2.6% among non-Veteran women.

• In 2021, the age-adjusted suicide rate of Veteran men was 43.4% greater than that of non-Veteran U.S. adult men, and the age-adjusted suicide rate of Veteran women was 166.1% higher than that of non-Veteran U.S. adult women.

It seems its less about the total and way more about the spike. While men veterans still kill themselves more often, that’s still in-line with what has been happening for decades now and not increasing at a rate inconsistent with non-veteran suicide, while the women veteran suicides are a massive spike of suicides in a short time frame, compared to non-veteran women suicides which only grew a fraction comparatively.

So, initially confusing, but looking closer, super important to take into account, actually.

DOWNGRAYEDD

This right here. Let’s not single out India, there’s a lot of shitheel governments to go around.

Me, viewing banned Wikipedia articles:

So maybe save some of that anger for the giant corporations that pay beaucoup bucks to float their shitty ghost kitchens to the top of search results, using the same gamesmanship. The money they spend has far more influence than individuals do.

And with all due respect if “success” in being a restaurateur is mostly catering to influencers who care more about how your food looks than tastes and are often wasteful and don’t even eat any of it, all while overworking the restaurant staff to make it happen… Fuck success.

Like how is that remotely news that a search engine indexes other people’s data to, you know, provide search results?

Absolutely, even the first Google Bombing goes back to 1999. It’s hardly news at all.

It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail.

-Gore Vidal

lmao, nobody cares when it’s big companies silently manipulating the results like this to the benefit of influencers, but once regular people become enraged enough to poison the data, now it’s something to talk about and totally represents how dystopian everything has gotten!

And while this is far from being a dangerous attempt to manipulate search results or AI algorithms, it does highlight the pitfalls of Google results becoming dependent on content generated by users who could very easily have intentions other than providing helpful information

Thanks for joining us in 2009, ArsTechnica. Hang on, I’ll grab my “Three Wolf Moon” t-shirt.

https://www.theregister.com/2009/04/17/time_top_100_hack/

Time Magazine’s poll of the 100 most influential people has been hacked by a motley band of online troublemakers who have managed to manipulate the top 21 names so their first letters spell “marblecake, also the game.”

Looking at what you quoted, that’s fair and can see how you misread it as such. I am sorry I said that it was purposeful.

Way to purposefully misread it.

The whole issue is that the Russians work for companies with sanctions against them.

So, treat all companies involved in war the same way, and you’ll never run into this hypocritical issue again.

There’s plenty of companies (like Valve) who don’t directly produce weapons of war or have contracts with their governments for war-services who contribute to Linux that could still do so, and plenty of individuals who don’t work for military and military adjacent companies to contribute.

Acting like removing people who work at companies that contribute to wars will mean no one can contribute is obviously a grossly exaggerated misinterpretation.

That’s literally what I suggested elsewhere here: If you work for ANY company in ANY country that produces weapons for war for ANY government, that they shouldn’t be allowed to contribute.

Because that at the very least would be consistent.