As others have said, cut off access and/or factory reset it.
My LG has never been granted net access, firmware upgrades through USB drives, and streaming through Onn 4K box(w/ a 3rd party launcher) and Apple TV. No surprise ads, apps, or anything.
Mostly bug fixes relevant to higher end home theatre setups. Typically bleeding edge stuff where a TV is released before a new HDMI spec is fully baked or whatnot. One of my older OLED panels needed a number of updates to get proper Dolby Vision profile support a few years back.
Typically not all that relevant most of the time to the average consumer, but if you’re having a persistent annoyance it’s worth looking through release notes from time to time.
This ignores that the vast majority of consumers actually use the smart tv features like the Netflix app. Then updates start to become far more relevant and eventually mandatory.
I updated my LG C5 firmware via USB and my Nintendo Switch 2 now says “Switch 2” on the home page instead of “Unknown Device”. So that’s nice I guess. Also it seemed to fix something with the 120hz HDR 10:10:10 signal when connected to my PC if I recall correctly that before resulted in poor image quality.
I have a TCL TV where a recent firmware update actually fixed up some Arc power settings and a few other things. I only connect the TV to update it once every 6 months, and as soon as the update is done, it gets unplugged from the network again.
Because the economics of desalination require locking in long term purchase/production rates at prices that dwarf current and other sources of water.
SD's Poseidon desal is projected at ~$3.7k per acre ft for 2026 whereas SDCWA SWP water is ~$1.5-1.9k acre ft.
Leak fixes, groundwater recharge, local aquifers, water banking, potable reuse, etc. are all more economical means of bolstering water supply.
A big factor in determining desalination placement in the region are the groundwater basins. Limited size and availability makes the case for desalination as means for resiliency. Another is that situating adjacent to power plants so as to use their already coastally degraded intakes/outfalls. Doheny is to use subsurface slant wells for intakes, but it's also lower output too.
As for LA. they're working on getting their potable reuse plants/projects up and running. The largest indirect potable reuse plant in the world has been operating in OC for ~18 years. Lower operating costs than desalination, reduced wastewater discharge, and reduced coastal impact.
that's very insightful. But if I can dive a bit deeper, why can't desalination be made at a grander scale? why aren't desalination plants trying to fill up artificial lakes for example, where those lakes are also being topped-up with reused potables. Would it help if there were much larger nuclear powerplants in the desert that take in salt water via an aqueduct from the sea and send back fresh water to artificial lakes, depositing the waste into the desert? Salton sea might be a good enough spot in socal for example, where it is already toxic and salty.
The few times I've been to the Salton area, I was amazed at the agriculture in the middle of the desert, including things like citrus plants, despite smelling the stench of salton from there. There are various lakes that dry up all the time like big bear, what would it take to keep such basins capable of sustaining fresh watter topped up with desalinated fresh water, instead of directly consuming it? In other words, making desalination an upstream element, with the goal of resisting drought overall, not just immediate fresh water supply.
I've ever wondered about places like death valley, if the elevation there is so low, is it easier to build geothermal plants that could desalinate at a greater rate there?
And since I'm asking dumb questions already, if an aqueduct to LA is possible at a 4 hour driving distance, then I know it would be costly, but is it that impractical to build an aqueduct from the great lakes, which have no shortage of fresh water, and evaporation loss could easily be recouped by the sheer volume of available fresh water supply.
The Owens River source for LA is so good because it’s basically a continuous gradual decline from the source to the city, requiring no pumps.
Pumping is very energy intensive. At around 2000-3000 ft the energy needed to pump fresh water starts to equal the energy needed to desalinate the same amount of salt water.
Even if it’s just going up then back down again like the Tehachapi Mountains only like 1/3rd of the energy can be reclaimed.
There's a group signed letter by 99 American volunteer medical professionals stating:
Specifically, every one of us who worked in an emergency, intensive care, or surgical setting treated pre-teen children who were shot in the head or chest on a regular or even a daily basis.
They’re not in the war zone taking an unbiased sample.
They’re in a hospital receiving critical but patients after triage
Inherently, their statistical sample of war injuries is biased. It’s a textbook example of the survivorship statical bias!
This is all I’m trying to say: not that their observations are false or that children aren’t being shot, but that they’re not in a position to draw accurate conclusions about what goes on outside the walls of their hospitals based on information they receive inside its walls. They certainly can’t draw conclusions about the motivations of IDF soldiers from the information available to them.
This logic applies to both sides, of course, and to all similar scenarios.
A random example are the Russian claims of having destroyed ‘X’ instances of ‘Y’ weapons system when Ukraine got less than ‘X’ delivered. The reason is simple — they’re not lying — they just counted the decoys they also blew up!
It’s war. It’s messy. Information is hard to interpret.
Regarding Russia there's also the phenomenon of inflating numbers at each step of the reporting chain, so suddenly a village reached by several soldiers, who subsequently died, turns into one that, on paper, was fully occupied.
This has caused issues on the Russian side, particularly in Ukraine's Kursk offensive, because troops moved in, assuming the territory is already taken, only to be ambushed.
"....A former Israeli prime minister has accused The New York Times of “blood libel” after the newspaper issued a clarification over the publication of a photograph of a child in Gaza whom the newspaper – and other media outlets – claimed was suffering “severe malnutrition”.
The New York Times admitted an error in publishing the image after it emerged the emaciated boy had been diagnosed with pre-existing health conditions. ...."
They're medical professionals. Not IDF soldiers. [1]
65 doctors, many of whom signed the letter previously mentioned, also signed an opinion essay on the NY Times. There are CT scans in the article. [2]
The NY Times Opinion editor even chimed in to state they saw corroborating said images, consulted independent experts to attest the credibility of said images, and ultimately decided the 40+ photos & videos of children with gunshots to the head and neck were too horrific for publication.[3]
Note that my original argument isn’t that children weren’t being shot — they clearly are — I’m saying that the doctors were making the claim that they were being “sniped” by “single shots”. The basis for the claim was that they saw few if any kids with multiple gunshot wounds.
Yes… because those kids died and hence there is no point taking them to a hospital. They go to a morgue.
They’re not lying about the facts, probably, I’m just saying that their facts don’t support their conclusions.
There’s still zero evidence to support their claims. Publishing an editorial saying “trust me bro” doesn’t enhance their veracity. It is physically impossible for a rifle round moving at high velocity to cause the minimal injuries shown in those x-rays. Such injuries are consistent only with indirect fire, such as a round fired into the air falling back down and striking some distant innocent on the head at low velocity.
What’s shocking is that the NYT won’t admit they fell for a hoax but instead are claiming they have ironclad evidence of genocide yet they are just… sitting on it because it’s gruesome for their readers to see? If that’s true then it is a staggering moral failure akin to being an accessory to the crime. Fortunately thats’s not the case because it’s a hoax.
Violations happened immediately[1]. Each phase was to be 42 days(6 weeks) not 3 months.
No, Israel & the US wanted a continuation via a modified version of phase 1 ceasefire rather than proceed to phase 2: securing exchange of Israeli captives but with the temporary cessation of military activities i.e., allowing them to resume.
Phase 2 as originally outlined & agreed would have been a commitment to a permanent cessation of military and hostile activities, withdrawal, and exchange of the remaining surviving Israeli & number of Palestinian captives[2]:
Announce restoration of a sustainable calm (cessation of military operations and hostilities permanently) and its commencement prior to the exchange of hostages and prisoners between the two sides – all remaining Israeli hostages who are living men (civilians and soldiers) in exchange for a number of prisoners in Israeli prisons and detention centers and the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza strip.
Moreover, Israel was supposed to send negotiators for implementation of phase 2 no later than the 16th day of phase 1(February 3rd) per the phase 1 agreement. Instead, Netanyahu met up with Trump, formulated their own agreement without any other mediators, and they delayed sending in negotiators until 2 days(February 27th) before phase 1 of the ceasefire was set to end with a "take it or else" approach.
"By looking at property damage and police injuries, we also conclude that this pro-Palestine movement has not been violent. That is true of both the national protest wave in general and of the student encampments in spring 2024 in particular. The rhetorical core of this pro-Palestine movement has not been a call for violence against Jews, but rather a call for freedom for Palestinians and an end to violence being inflicted upon them. To substantiate this point, we considered two sources of evidence: 1) the banners, signs, and chants seen or heard at pro-Palestine events; 2) the demands issued by organizers of over 100 student encampments."
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14742837.2024.2...
You do if you're using an android device, for which Apple has yet to release any sort of remote app or control scheme.
The general layout for the remote the parent poster was talking about was discontinued in May of 2021 (last being the Siri 1st gen remote), so it wasn't that long ago.
>“We did not hold in Armstrong I that the President could designate any material he wishes as presidential records, and thereby exercise “virtually complete control” over it, notwithstanding the fact that the material does not meet the definition of “presidential records” in the PRA.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 297 (D.D.C. 2012)
Additionally:
>“The only reference in the entire statute to the designation of records as personal versus Presidential also calls for the decision to be made by the executive, and to be made during, and not after, the presidency.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 300-1 (D.D.C. 2012)
> The Court will grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because plaintiff's claim is not redressable. NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff's alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff's characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case must be dismissed.
>...Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion, see44 U.S.C. § 2203(b)
The room for judicial review of a President's determination of personal vs. presidential records is so narrow the chances of it actually being successful in court are slim.
> Moreover, that goes in hand with the recently released audio of the events transcribed in US v. Trump Nauta wherein he acknowledges that he could have declassified it, but did not.
Looking at the context in which the statements were made, it is clear that Trump's primary intent was to signal the authoritative nature of the documents - in order to demonstrate that a senior military official had been lying about him (with regard to plans to invsde Iran).
His statements about whether they are classified mean very little when his very act of retaining them makes them personal records. Saying "I could have declassified them" is simply another way of saying "I could have made them public" and is not a statement about his right as president be the sole arbiter over what constitutes a presidential record.
The article does talk about US rear underride guards as well, but notes that they were inadequate for many years. I've driven past a hastily draped over fatality from such a collision in the 2000s and have kept a wide berth from trailers since.
reply