noevidenz

Quick, put some AI in it!

There is currently no evidence of an RCE exploit in EAC, and EAC themselves as well as their owner, Epic, have both denied the existence of an RCE in their software.

There's a video from about a month ago in which ImperialHal and Genburten (on separate occasions) are in a match against the person named in the messages sent by the exploit on Genburten's machine.

It's possible that they were in contact with the hacker after that point and that he tricked them into downloading something they shouldn't have.

Otherwise, it's also possible that there is an exploit in Apex/Source that the hacker used. He may have been able to get their IP during the public match a month ago and then use it to target them during the competition.

Beyond what was seen during the competition, the hacker was also able to gift thousands of Apex packs to several players (seemingly without paying for them) and was able to get 40+ "bot" players into a single match and to all target an individual player. He also claimed to be able to open crates on another player's account. These other exploits seem to indicate that he has elevated access to both the server and to multiple APIs, but none of them indicate elevated access to user machines in general.

AOC is currently 34 and her birthday is in October, so she will actually be old enough to be president by the time of the election.

This article could've been a PNG

This is a bit of a misleading summary.

Melenchon speaks for his own party, France Unbowed (LFI), not the entire NFP alliance.

The NFP as a whole has not declared support for Melenchon's position, although his party controls 71 (~41%) of NFP's 180 seats in the National Assembly.

Macron has already indicated that he will not allow Melenchon to become Prime Minister, and the entire NFP will be aware that they must select a more moderate leader to represent them if they expect to gain enough support from the centre to operate as a minority government.

Most of the conspiracies I've seen are related to the fact that there were live streams of it.

Some people are just unfamiliar with the fact that there are webcams streaming 24/7 in cities all over the world.

The LNP doesn't have a legitimate interest in transitioning to nuclear power or they would've begun over the last decade or so that they were in power.

Instead they've proposed - now that they're in opposition - a technology which is banned at the Federal level and individually at the state level, because they know that gives them years of lead time before they ever have to begin the project.

On top of that, all of the proposed sites are owned by companies who've already begun transitioning to renewable generation or renewable storage, and most of them are in states in which the state Premiers have publicly stated that they will not consider overturning their bans on nuclear power.

It's pretty common with dementia that older memories are recalled more strongly and as if they happened more recently than they actually did.

If anyone made it as far as the third sentence in the article, they might notice that "Islamic Jihad" in the title refers to "Palestinian Islamic Jihad".

They're not blaming Hamas for this incident. PIJ is a separate organisation.

Would Israel take the same approach if Hamas was hiding in an Israeli hospital?

Your instinct to search for a non-Murdoch source is correct, as they are trying to paint the entire NFP as holding the same positions as their most extreme member.

There is little to no chance of Melenchon becoming Prime Minister or having any ability to enact this tax.

However a marginal tax rate of 90% on income over €400k is well above the upper-middle class and would apply to only the wealthiest families, most of whom would still have other avenues to minimise the tax they actually pay.

Exactly. They've brought up nuclear because they're desperate to have some kind of energy policy, but one they know they'll never have to bring to fruition because that allows them to continue with coal and gas for as long as possible.

How about "vexatious litigation"?

He thinks the Ten Commandments are a bingo card.

This is somewhat analogous to the way midterm elections are treated in the US, and a decent comparison would be when Mitch McConnell blocked Obama from appointing a Supreme Court Justice towards the end of his second term.

The Democrats lost seats in Congress during that midterm season, which the Republicans used to claim that the American people had no faith in the Democrats and therefore no faith in Obama. They then used this claim as an excuse to block the Democrats ability to govern.

In this case, the people of France have voted for another party to represent their interests internationally to the EU parliament.

Macron will now face claims within the French government that the people voting against them in the EU elections indicates that they have no faith in his party's leadership and that will make it difficult for him to govern.

With this move, calling an election early, they will have a clear indication of who the French people wish to lead them internally and, if they reelect Macron's party, can dismiss the claims from opposition parties that the people don't trust them.

It's worth mentioning that many governments around the world don't have fixed election cycles the way you do in the US. Instead many countries have an end date by which the election must occur, but a new election can be called at any time before that date if the government thinks it's necessary. A similar thing is currently happening in the UK where the Conservative Party has called an election for early July, even though the election didn't have to take place until late January 2025.

Microsoft decided to skip Windows 9 because, after doing a lot of research, they found that a lot of commonly used legacy software had implemented compatibility hacks which involved checking for "Windows 9" to detect when the software was running under either Windows 95 or Windows 98.

Instead of breaking a lot of software or requiring a lot of updates (some of which could even be from vendors who were no longer in business) they decided to work around the problem by just skipping straight to 10.

Edit: My mistake, I responded to the wrong comment. But I'm gonna leave it here because I already typed it.

I agree that he ought to be disqualified from holding office per the 14th Amendment, however I doubt it will apply.

U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

I've bolded the parts which might apply to Trump.

executive or judicial officer of any State

He was an Executive, but not of any State, so he doesn't meet that condition.

officer of the United States

"Officer of the United States" has an established meaning in the constitution as, essentially, "officers appointed by the President" (with approval from the Senate).

U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

If we take this list to be exhaustive, then Officers must be appointed by the President and are not elected by the public, therefore the President himself is excluded from the definition of "Officers of the United States".

The Supreme Court has followed this reasoning in the past.

United States v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303 (1888)

Unless a person in the service of the government, therefore, holds his place by virtue of an appointment by the President or of one of the courts of justice or heads of departments authorized by law to make such an appointment, he is not, strictly speaking, an officer of the United States.

And Justice Roberts has used this reasoning more recently.

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010):

The diffusion of power carries with it a diffusion of accountability. The people do not vote for the “Officers of the United States.” Art. II, §2, cl. 2. They instead look to the President to guide the “assistants or deputies … subject to his superintendence.”

And finally

having previously taken an oath

The oath taken by those Congress and Officers of the United States (and all others listed in U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3) is a different oath to the one sworn by the President, and it may be argued that the oath U.S. Const. amend. XIV refers to is explicitly that sworn by members of Congress and other Officers, not the Presidential Oath of Office. (Although this to me is the weakest part of the arguement.)

While I completely agree that by any reasonable standard Trump ought to be disqualified from holding office per the 14th Amendment, it is unfortunately not a reasonable standard that he will be held to. It is this Supreme Court's standard.