An intranet is a local and private computer network.
The internet is a network of intranets, or more accurately, a network by which computers of disparate networks can connect.
Intra, meaning inside or within. Inter, meaning between or among.
Interdepartmental communication would be communication between departments, while intradepartmental communication would be within a single department.
The inter vs intra is the difference here.
The intent behind ladybird is to not use existing renderers, so brand new everything from scratch.
Originally it was the browser/HTML viewer for SerenityOS and it got split off.
Things I like:
- Not chromium, no code from any other browser
- No monetization
- Sponsorships are shown on the website and social media, not the browser
What I don't like:
- Github (main repo)
- Discord (main community hub)
- Xitter (main social media updates)
Targeted alpha is 2026.
Get Kimmel back and customers will stop leaking away.
Thats the plan for sure. They've lost ground, they won't recover all the subscribers lost, but they are trying to stop the absolute hemorrhaging they were seeing.
Contact your ISP and let them know you aren't interested in a Disney+ subscription and why. Mention any competing ISP in your area has whatever other streaming service, and its tempting because its not Disney+.
And specifically a political one in support of fascism
Back then, an internet (lower case "i") was a small internal network of computers that communicated with each other.
That is an intranet, not internet, and is still applicable as a term. You just hear people say LAN more these days.
"World Wide Web" turned out to be a mouthful to say, so we replaced it with "the Internet" instead. Although most websites still start with "www" to represent their global reach.
The world wide web was always just one part of the internet, specifically the portion supported by http. Ftp, email, etc existed then as well, but was not part of the www.
fights with corporate partners and regulators have drastic long term impact.
Sinclair was going to do what Sinclair was going to do regardless:
I'll pull one key part of that article:
Nexstar, it should be noted, has a $6 billion-plus deal pending before the FCC to acquire Tegna, an agreement that would make it by far the largest owner of local TV stations in the country. Sinclair has also expressed a desire to pursue M&A, which would also require FCC approval
So the only fight Disney would have is with the FCC chair and an act so blatantly in violation of the constitution republicans commented on it, or immediate damage to the brand.
EDIT: I want to be clear here... You are talking as if "people get pissed but we bring it back a week later and then everyone moves on" wasn't the best possible outcome for them given the circumstances. I think it was, and that was calculated.
Everyone has not moved on though.
People canceled subscriptions, many have been commenting they aren't going back.
You are assuming it was calculated, but from early reports a lot of the executive suite was angry about the quick decision that was made, and how it would be damaging to Disney long term.
This is all hypotheticals now, so I'm not going to do some back and forth on guesswork. But to suggest that it was an issue of fiduciary duty - no, that was not the only choice based on financial impact. The brand is damaged. Subscriptions were on a rise and went into a freefall. Resorts saw a massive amount of cancelations, which will severely impact park revenue as well.
I stand by what I said - that was a severe misunderstanding or misstatement regarding fiduciary duties.
For my lab its testing ideas. More often than not, it involved hardware outside the server. Cloud hosted is not an option for that, or playing with a variety of distributions, testing applications, etc.
vs a nebulous argument towards the impact of moral decision making on profitability.
No, its that vs the clearly expected consumer response, which has a permanent brand impact and a short term subscriber/vacationer/etc impact, not to mention the 2% drop in stocks (an over $4b impact).
Ignoring ethics, this was a bad business decision. The long term impact is obviously not yet known, but the short term impact was rapid and strong.
Disney management has a fiduciary responsibility they cannot ignore.
Sorry, but this is a complete misunderstanding of how this works.
Recognizing that pulling Kimmel's show would result in severe harm to the brand, short term and long term, matches that responsibility as well. Shareholders can even make the decision to claim the board (and specifically Iger) were in violation of their duties with this decision. The blowback was obvious and expected.
They absolutely are at fault.
There isn't much to it. Its up here:
You replied to the wrong person BTW.
The only thing about it now is how hard he is falling against releasing anything - which makes it seem like there is enough to really cause problems.
And I get it on some posts, its pretty excessive to bring up in some situations.
A comment I made elsewhere about people bringing up Epstein:
Just something to think about here - republicans all seem pretty gung-ho on the fascism, and they have control of everything right now. Do you think pointing it out will change republican minds? Those in office and those who are the voters backing them up.
Personally, I don't see that happening. You'll get some halfhearted dissent here and there, but I think thats mostly cover.
So, what would cause a major split or shift? I think solid confirmation of Trump making use of Epstein's 'services' could do that. Maybe it won't, I can't predict the future (obviously). It seems much more likely than pointing out how rights are being stripped away (again and again), because they haven't cared about our rights yet.
That doesn't mean I think we should ignore what's happening, just that I think there is substantial value in making sure the Epstein files don't just disappear. If there wasn't, I don't think they would be trying so hard to deflect/ignore/cover up anything related to it.
There are some people who tall about the economy, but let's be honest there too - the wealthy will use a bad economy to buy things up, meanwhile the soybean farmers praying (literally) to Trump think he has some grand plan and this hurt is temporary.
Its the same with taking away peoples rights to be who they are, or to even speak about who they are - they agree with it because its hurting the people they want it to. They won't see the hypocrisy.
If trump supporters can see Trump as a child abuser and liar, then maybe they'll see he was lying about other things too. Maybe they'll recognize that the people who were chest thumping about Epstein files that suddenly went quiet - the ones that fill up their Facebook feed and their alt right TV network - are also liars and manipulators.
Guaranteed? No. But a realistic approach thats gained traction.
I think I know exactly the comment that inspired this post.
the article makes it clear this is suspected suicide but that the police / FBI are keeping open minds because of the obvious connotations.
Just so you know, the cops have said quite specifically they don't think it was anything but suicide.
Its also a heavily racist area and no one should trust cops in the first place, making for a bad combo. Thats why the family will want an autopsy from someone independent of the police.