They're wideband EM devices, so the problem of congested spectrum can be dealt with by the same sort of techniques used by WiFi and mobile phone services.
If you were to provide Photoshop as a Service on a sufficiently large scale, you would also be expected to take all reasonable measures to prevent it being used to disseminate CSAM and other abusive material.
So, no different to the standard that X should be held to.
The worst bit was that the touch-sensitive area didn't extend as far left as the physical keyboard - so not only did the ESC key become virtual with no tactile feedback, it also shifted position.
The draft Online Safety Bill was first published in 2021, was substantially re-written and re-introduced in early 2022, was amended over the course of the next 18 months, and eventually passed into law as the Online Safety Act in October 2023.
Peter Kyle was in opposition until July 2024, so how could he have spearheaded it?
Because he implemented it under his tenure in July 2025. He didn't come up with it, he spearheaded its actual implementation. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Why would it make no sense? Like many bills/acts, it came into effect in stages. You're referring to new laws/crimes that came into effect in January 2024.
I'm referring to the Act's powers to compel companies to actually do things in my original comment. I don't know exactly when various parts came into effect that would constitute that, but for the point of my post I'm going on Peter Kyle's own website's dated reference to holding companies accountable.
"As of the 24th July 2025, platforms now have a legal duty to protect children"
I don't understand why people are taking issue with that. Peter Kyle is the minister who delivered the measures from the bill that a lot of people are angry about and this latest issue on X is just another red flag that the bill is poorly worded and thought out putting too much emphasis on ID age checks for citizens than actually stopping any abuse. Peter Kyle is the one who called out objections to the bill as being on the "side of predators". Peter Kyle is now the one, despite having moved department, who is somehow commenting on this issue.
Totally happy to call out the Tories, and prior ministers who worked on the Bill/Act but Kyle implemented it, made reckless comments about, and now is trying to look proactive about an issue it covers that it's so ineffectively applying to.
> this latest issue on X is just another red flag that the bill is poorly worded and thought out putting too much emphasis on ID age checks for citizens than actually stopping any abuse.
The bill is designed to protect children from extreme sexual violence, extreme pornography and CSAM.
Partisan politics has rotted peoples brains, I wonder if it is by design to lower peoples critical thinking skills or if it is just a fringe benefit from the tribalism it creates.
As I understand it, the studies done with mice suggest that microgravity prevents normal embryo development. The ISS should therefore be regarded as a teratogenic environment, and I'd be shocked if women of childbearing age weren't prescribed highly-effective contraceptives (ie. IUD/IUS or implant) before, during, and after spaceflight.
I’m sure they were prescribed, but it’s always possible for them to fail.
I’m curious at what point in the embryo’s development the zero-g becomes an issue, if its immediate vs long term thing. It’s very possible that if it was pregnancy, the embryo is already not viable but she still needs some procedures to ensure her own health (a DnC, etc) that are important but not enough for an emergency evac.
It's in relation to a run, though - what else could it mean but distance? Steps? Maybe, but I've genuinely never heard of that being used as a goal when running. Seconds? Again, it's a possibility, but it'd be more usual to say something like "1h23-ish" - and, besides, that'd be a really odd time to pick.
And even in the UK, where many people still measure longer distances in miles, I've never heard anyone talk about a run being however many thousand feet or yards or chains or whatever.
All of the first page results for a USA-based google search for "5k" are running-related too, so it can't really be all that ambiguous there either.
Sizing errors are essentially unheard of, and I've never seen anyone having any trouble with joining or folding ISO paper to go one size up/down. It's a completely normal operation, which people working in printing and publishing will routinely do without a second thought.
For commercial printing, there's the SRA paper series (Supplementary Raw) which is designed to accommodate bleed and alignment bars. An A4 glossy magazine, for example, might be printed on SRA3 and will be trimmed, folded, and stapled automatically at the end of the printing process. But that's a technical detail for the printer to care about - the publisher or designer might specify "folded A3 with bleeds", and the printer will choose the correct raw format to provide that within their printing system.
In the UK, "gee es em" was the usual term I heard at the local paper merchants when I was a regular customer in the late 90s - early 2000s.
Of the four reams of paper/card I have at home, two are labelled in "gsm", one is "g.m⁻²", and one uses both "g/m²" and "gsm" in different places. Weirdly, it seems that the specialist stuff is more likely to use "gsm" than the everyday 80 g/m² A4.
It's a bit more complex than that! The font made by Monotype for The Times in 1931 was always called Times New Roman - it was, after all, a new Roman-style typeface for The Times.
Linotype then made their own variant simply called Times Roman, which differed mostly in having slanted serifs. The Times switched to this in 1982.
Both Monotype and Linotype produced digital versions, but Linotype's was initially slightly cheaper and thus more popular. In 1984, Adobe licensed it for inclusion in the core Postscript font set, and for a while became the "default" proportional serif typeface.
As WYSIWYG word processing and DTP took off, lots of knock-offs appeared, often called something like "Thymes", "London", or just plain "Roman". At some point, Monotype reduced their prices but by the late 80s Times New Roman was sadly neglected, seen almost as just another clone (after all, The Times itself was using the Linotype version by then!).
TNR became one of the core fonts in Truetype (initially an Apple/Microsoft collaboration, intended to break Adobe's stranglehold on computer typography), so was included by default in Windows 3.1 and Apple's System 7, leading to a resurgence in its popularity.
The Times then moved to Monotype's Times Modern (which features serifs that are even more slanted than Linotype's Times Roman) when they moved to tabloid format in the early 2000s. Monotype bought Linotype at around the same time, so all three fonts are now available from the same source at the same price.
reply