Gestrid

It supports casting via the YouTube phone app (or YouTube ReVanced app).

Kodi—It can connect to a media source via FTP, so I was able to effortlessly connected it to my online storage to download shows and movies from it to watch on the fly, and on my TV no less. Without that, it'd be a huge pain just to get the file onto my TV.

SmartTube—It's an ad-free YouTube video app for Android TVs, and it has Sponsorblock included. You could say it's YouTube Vanced for Android TVs.

Discord bots—I've setup my own personal Discord server (no other humans allowed in it) and set it up with various bots that do things ranging from posting tweets/ posts from Twitter/ Bluesky to letting me know when specific channels have uploaded a new video on YouTube or gone live on Twitch. I've also got another bot monitoring some RSS feeds.

Firefox has translation now, too, on both mobile and desktop.

And you can optionally add the Google Translate extension to desktop Firefox if you want. (It really is convenient, isn't it?)

And you can always just plug in the URL of whatever page you're trying to translate directly into https://translate.google.com/.

Didn't they recently go public? They're traded as RDDT on the New York Stock Exchange.

A friend of mine used to have a black lab. They called their tail a whip.

I recently discovered I can just have Kodi on my Fire TV use SFTP to login to my seedbox and download my shows from there.

"Wait, it's an oligarchy?"

"Always has been."

I know Steam itself says it doesn't track your playtime while you're playing offline. Not sure about the Steam Deck, though.

Windows accepts either one.

it's not particularly uncommon for businesses to move money around in an effort to make new product seem better or more profitable than it is.

Didn't Xbox do something like this? I heard they converted all remaining Xbox Live subscribers to Xbox Game Pass.

Wow, they really sued the Wikimedia Foundation instead of trying to find a reliable source to refute the article's claims. I looked up the edits they made. They removed content, citing various Wikipedia policies that govern how the article should be phrased.

In general, so long as the information is presented in a neutral, matter-of-fact manner and cites a reliable source, it can go in the article. Wikipedia's job is to summarize what reliable sources say about a subject.

So all ANI would've needed to do was find a reliable source (preferably more than one) refuting the claims they want to refute. The most they'd likely be able to do is put both points of view in the article rather than removing one point of view entirely from the article, which is what they were trying to do.

Instead, they went to court about it.

To be clear, uBlock Origin isn't the problem, either.

YouTube is.