I saw some stats on this months ago, especially after the initial explosion. I’m curious if the growth is still continuing at a good pace and also how everyone feels about the growth/activity within their communities.

Let me clarify: We have a certain amount of latency when streaming games from both local and internet servers. In either case, how do we improve that latency and what limits will we run in to as the technology progresses?

I’m considering a graduate degree in engineering but I’m not sure what to expect out of grad school compared to undergrad studies. Share whatever you’d like about your degree, experience earning it, if you’d do it over again, and how it’s affected your life.

I’ve used both Apple Music and Spotify in recent years and while their discovery is okay, it always plays it safe. As if they’ve made a genre that is just for me and won’t play anything outside of that. How do I expand my music horizons?

Finally getting around to checking out Fallout 4. I played it through without the DLC a while back but I think it’s about time I get down to it on my list and play through the DLCs. I wanted to do it on the survival difficulty or one of the harder ones at least. That led to me checking out the achievements. I don’t keep up with newer games but I didn’t realize achievements have gotten quite this bad. Most of the achievements are ones you get from the story itself, no challenge there. Then I found out there is no achievement for higher difficulties. I enjoy a challenge, it’s why I go back and play games that I enjoy. And I know it’s a reward in and of itself to beat it, but it feels less validating to not have an achievement. Especially in an open world game where people will want to experience more of it.

It’s not even that games have gotten easier per se, but more than they don’t reward playing on harder difficulties and skimp on challenges like achievements. I like harder difficulty because it encourages me to engage with every system I can. So what gives? Is this just me or has everyone else noticed how phoned in most achievements and difficulty options are these days?

Looking for an alternative to apps like TickTick and Todoist but I don’t want a subscription to deal with. I can justify a one time purchase of a todo app though as long as it’s reasonable. Any recommendations?

Or even just a good open source paid app?

Former President Donald Trump’s legal defense against federal criminal charges for trying to overturn the 2020 election is beginning to take shape.

During a speech in New Hampshire Tuesday, Trump argued, as his lawyers have in recent days, that his statements about the election were constitutionally protected speech. He claimed that his First Amendment rights are under attack — not just because he was indicted in connection to his repeated lies that the election had been stolen from him, but also because prosecutors are seeking a protective order preventing him from speaking publicly about evidence revealed as part of the discovery process in the case.

“I’ll be the only politician in American history not allowed to speak because of our corrupt system,” he told the crowd.

John Lauro, a member of his legal team, argued on CNN earlier this week that Trump “had every right to advocate for his position” — including when he “asked” Pence to throw out Electoral College votes from certain states on January 6, 2021 — and that his advocacy is now “being criminalized.”

And Trump pushed back Tuesday on the notion that he knew he had lost the election but sought to overturn the results anyway — what may become a sticking point as prosecutors attempt to convince jurors that he had criminal intent.

Altogether, those statements suggest that Trump’s team appears to be currently pursuing three lines of legal defense: that his speech is protected under the First Amendment, that he didn’t order Pence to participate in an illegal scheme to stop the certification of the election results, and that he couldn’t have criminal intent if he didn’t truly understand he had lost. It might be too early to tell whether those defenses will prove enough to acquit Trump. And we still don’t know the full breadth of the evidence that Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith has in his possession, though many legal experts say the indictment is well-drafted and the most serious of the three levied against Trump so far. We asked legal experts how strong they think these three defense strategies are. Here’s what they said.

Defense strategy 1: Trump’s statements about election fraud were protected as free speech under the First Amendment Smith acknowledges in the indictment that Trump had every right under the First Amendment to protest the results of the election, as the former president and his lawyers have claimed. “They don’t want me to speak about a rigged election. They don’t want me to speak about it. I have freedom of speech, the First Amendment,” Trump said Tuesday.

But Smith argues that what Trump wasn’t allowed to do was urge others to form an illegal plan to undermine the results.

The indictment describes that plan as involving a prolonged pressure and influence campaign that targeted state politicians in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona. When no politician would help him overturn the election, the indictment says Trump went on to use “Dishonesty, Fraud, and Deceit” to assemble a slate of unlawful Electoral College electors in seven states, and that he and his allies lied to many electors to get them to go along with the plan. Then, Trump tried to use the powers of the executive branch — those given to the Justice Department and the vice president — to stay in power. Finally, the indictment places at Trump’s feet the violence of January 6 and a plan to stop the certification of the vote.

All of those actions go far beyond simply protesting the results.

What do legal experts think of this defense? “You don’t have the First Amendment right to solicit a crime or to pressure other people to take illegal action,” said Cheryl Bader, a professor of criminal law at Fordham Law. “The speech here is both the evidence of the engineering of overturning the results, and it’s also the vehicle that he used to solicit the action.”

The question is whether Smith has the evidence to support the fact that Trump did exactly that, and we don’t yet have a full picture of how strong that evidence might be. Trump’s legal team only needs to plant enough doubt of that in jurors’ minds for them to acquit him. That’s why, at this early point in the case, the First Amendment defenses put forth by Trump “aren’t irrational or absurd and may have some basis,” said Kevin O’Brien, a former assistant US attorney in New York who specializes in white-collar criminal defense. “I don’t think the First Amendment argument is a bad argument at this stage.”

Defense strategy 2: Trump was “aspirational” in his request that Pence not certify the election results Lauro has argued that Trump was “aspirational” in asking (rather than ordering) Pence not to certify the election results. “What President Trump did not do is direct Vice President Pence to do anything. He asked him in an aspirational way. Asking is covered by the First Amendment,” he told CNN.

What do legal experts think of this defense? That defense might seem a bit absurd on its face. But O’Brien said it’s “not a stupid claim” and “points out something interesting about the way Trump works” that may help protect him in this case. “Trump oftentimes doesn’t finish things. He sort of encourages people to go storming the Capitol, and then he gets in a limo and goes home,” O’Brien said. “He’s never out front. He never has the courage of his convictions, if he has any convictions. He has other people doing the dirty work. And at some point, he just walks away.”

At the same time, John C. Coffee, a law professor at Columbia University, pointed out that Pence is likely to testify as to whether he understood Trump’s language as aspirational or a demand. “Remember, too, that Pence has stated that Trump told him that his problem was that he was just ‘too honest.’ That does not sound like an aspirational request, but a request to follow his direction,” he said.

Coffee also noted that there were other points where Trump seemed to explicitly demand that fellow Republicans join his cause, including when he pressured officials in Georgia to “find” the votes necessary for him to win the state. “I think we see a lot of very heavy-handed bullying conduct that cuts against this idea that his words were aspirational,” Bader said. Defense strategy 3: Trump always believed that the election was fraudulent To convict Trump, prosecutors will need to show that Trump had criminal intent. Trump’s lawyers have suggested that he couldn’t have criminal intent because he was reacting to what he believed was legitimate election fraud, despite many people around him telling him otherwise.

Trump has maintained that he believes the election was rigged against him: “There was never a second of any day that I didn’t believe that the election was rigged,” he told the crowd Tuesday.

What do legal experts think of this defense? Legal experts said that prosecutors may not need to necessarily prove that Trump knew he lost the election, only that he knew he was using possibly unlawful means to reach the end he believed was right: another four years in the White House.

“Even if he believed he had won the election and it had been stolen from him, if he then went out and formulated a plan to prevent the legitimately elected electors of various states from voting and having the results certified, that would probably satisfy the intent standard,” O’Brien said.

Bader said that Smith is likely going to argue that Trump took illegal actions that “transcend what his personal motivation is for engaging in this conduct.” But he’s also likely going to argue that Trump is lying when he says he always believed that the election was stolen from him.

“There’s so much evidence that this was just a fantasy and that this was all pretext,” she said. “Smith is going to focus on the evidence of all the instances where advisers, staffers, court decisions, intelligence agencies, the Department of Justice are all telling him that there’s nothing there, that the emperor has no clothes. And yet, Trump persisted and actually ramped up the pressure campaign.”

U.S. Senator Joe Manchin, a maverick Democrat who has often bucked party leadership, told a radio station in his home state of West Virginia on Thursday that he is "thinking seriously" about leaving the party.

"I'm not a Washington Democrat," Manchin said in the interview on Talkline with Hoppy Kercheval, a West Virginia Metro News show. "I've been thinking seriously about that (becoming an independent) for quite some time."

Manchin and Democratic-turned-independent colleague Senator Kyrsten Sinema have been thorns in top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer's side since the party won its majority in 2020. Democrats hold a 51-49 majority, including three independents who caucus with them.

Last month Manchin further stirred Democratic concerns with an appearance in the early-voting state of New Hampshire with the "No Labels" group, where he mulled starting a third-party presidential campaign in 2024, challenging Democratic President Joe Biden. Having a third-party candidate would "threaten" the two major political parties, Manchin said.

Manchin has used his influence to block legislation that he opposes - including expanding voting rights protections and child tax credits - and to ensure passage of bills he supports, such as a major tax and climate law that passed last summer.

He faces a tough re-election bid next year in Republican-leaning West Virginia, which former President Donald Trump won by almost 39 percentage points in 2020. Manchin has not yet said if he will seek re-election, but he would face an even steeper road if he spurned his party and the fundraising support it can provide.

West Virginia Governor Jim Justice, a former Democrat-turned Republican, began his campaign in April for the Republican nomination to seek Manchin's seat.

Manchin, a popular former governor who was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 2010, has kept his seat in part by maintaining a reputation as a rare conservative Democrat in Washington.

U.S. prosecutors on Thursday asked a federal judge to begin former President Donald Trump's trial on charges of trying to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden on Jan. 2, 2024.

That date would have the trial get underway just two weeks before the first votes are cast in the 2024 Republican presidential primary, a race in which Trump is the front-runner.

U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith's office asked a judge in a court filing on Thursday to start the trial on Jan. 2 in part due to the public's interest in a speedy trial.

Smith's office said that interest is "of particular significance here, where the defendant, a former president, is charged with conspiring to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, obstruct the certification of the election results, and discount citizens’ legitimate votes."

A spokesperson for Trump did not immediately return a request for comment. Prosecutors also predicted it will take about four to six weeks to put forward the bulk of their case against Trump at trial.

Trump last week pleaded not guilty to charges over the alleged election conspiracy. Smith's office said it is prepared to turn over to Trump by the end of August most of the evidence it intends to use at trial in a process known as discovery.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, who is presiding over the election case, is set to hold a Friday hearing on how that evidence may be handled by Trump and his defense team.

Prosecutors also said there is a "minimal" amount of classified information involved in the election case, and asked Chutkan to address that issue at a previously scheduled Aug. 28 hearing.

A January trial would have Trump on trial three times in the first half of 2024. He will go to trial in March over New York state charges that he falsified documents in connection with hush money payments to a porn star. Trump also faces a May trial from Smith in southern Florida over the retention of classified documents after leaving office.

Ohio’s special election on Tuesday could raise the threshold for amending the state’s constitution and have a potentially critical impact on the future of abortion rights in the state. With few other elections happening in an off year, a ballot measure in Ohio that would enshrine abortion rights in its constitution will be one of the most closely watched elections in November 2023. But first voters will decide this Tuesday on whether a supermajority should be necessary for constitutional amendments, which could require abortion rights advocates to climb a steeper hill to achieve their goal this fall.

Here are three things to know ahead of Ohio’s special election Tuesday:

It’s the first of two key ballot measures in Ohio this year Ohio voters will turn out at the polls twice in three months for ballot measures that will have long-lasting implications.

First, there’s the ballot measure being voted on in a special election on Tuesday. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) and state Rep. Brian Stewart (R) last November proposed this measure, which would raise the threshold for amending the state constitution. They said at the time that the amendment was intended to counter the influence of special interests and out-of-state actors.

Second, there’s a ballot measure on Nov. 8, which would enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. The measure specifically states that Ohioans would have a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” with “reasonable limits.”

The Aug. 8 vote comes despite state lawmakers having approved legislation that mostly banned holding special elections in August.

The lawmakers determined that holding special elections that month was too expensive and had too little turnout to be fair or worth having. But Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) went ahead and signed the resolution from Stewart following approval from the state legislature, setting the Tuesday special election for raising the threshold to change the constitution. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in June following a legal challenge that the special election could move forward despite the law.

Abortion rights advocates, meanwhile, had proposed the second ballot measure, which seeks to protect abortion rights, after the state’s six-week ban on the practice was temporarily blocked amid legal battles. The ban had gone into effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last June, but was put on hold in September. A representative for Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom, which proposed the abortion ballot measure, told The Hill last week that they do not expect to ultimately win the case, so it turned to the ballot measure.

Abortion rights advocates were able to gather more than 700,000 signatures to put the abortion measure on the ballot in November—about 300,000 more than necessary. LaRose certified that enough signatures had been obtained late last month.

It’s seen as a direct response to November abortion measure The amendment being voted on Tuesday, called Issue 1, would implement three policies that would make passing future amendments — including the November abortion rights measure — more difficult.

If approved, Issue 1 would require that, effective immediately, amendments would need to receive support from at least 60 percent of voters instead of the current threshold of a simple majority in order to go into effect.

It would also require that, starting Jan. 1, petitions for constitutional amendments receive signatures from at least 5 percent of voters in all 88 of Ohio’s counties based on how many people voted in the last gubernatorial election. Petitions currently only need to receive support from that amount in half of the state’s counties.

Lastly, the measure would eliminate a 10-day period that a petitioner has after submitting a petition for an amendment to obtain additional signatures if some of their signatures are determined to be invalid. That would also go into effect on Jan. 1.

Abortion rights activists have argued that Issue 1 was specifically designed to prevent the abortion rights measure in November from passing as polls show a majority of Ohioans would vote to protect rights to the procedure. LaRose has mostly argued that Issue 1 is about protecting the constitution, but he faced controversy for saying at one point that it is “100 percent about keeping a radical pro-abortion amendment out of our constitution.” Lauren Blauvelt, the vice president of government affairs and public advocacy at Planned Parenthood Advocates of Ohio, told The Hill last week that her coalition reached enough signatures in 55 counties — considerably more than the current requirement — for the abortion measure to qualify for the November ballot. She argued that requiring signatures from all 88 counties would make citizens being able to put forward a ballot measure “impossible.”

Those advocating in favor of Issue 1, most of whom are Republican, have argued that putting these rules in place is necessary to stop special interests from being able to influence a governing document as powerful as the state’s constitution.

GOP strategist Mark Weaver argued that only having a simple majority to amend the constitution is a “very low bar.” His firm has produced some ads encouraging people to vote “yes” on the Aug. 8 ballot.

The current system for constitutional amendments in Ohio has operated since the modern constitution went into effect in 1912. Both are part of nationwide battle over abortion rights.

The fight over abortion in Ohio is just the latest in an extensive struggle over access to abortion in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe. Regardless of whether Issue 1 passes Tuesday, the abortion amendment passing in November would undoubtedly be a major win for abortion rights advocates in a state that moved to ban the procedure after Dobbs.

Referenda have been held in half a dozen states on abortion access questions over the past year. In each of those votes, the side in favor of abortion rights won. A measure to state that the Kansas constitution does not protect abortion rights failed last August in the first major test on abortion rights in the post-Roe world.

Voters in Vermont and California, two solidly liberal states, comfortably approved measures to codify abortion rights in their state constitutions in November, further safeguarding protections already protected through state law.

Michigan voters also approved a state constitutional amendment to protect access to abortion, overturning an almost century-old state ban that went into effect after Dobbs. At the same time, measures that would have put additional restrictions on abortion were narrowly rejected in the conservative-leaning states of Kentucky and Montana.

If the Ohio abortion rights amendment passes in November, it would be a major win for liberals in a state that has been trending red for years.

Jeff Rusnak, an Ohio strategist supporting the abortion amendment, told The Hill last week that the Tuesday measure can be a “change election” that sets the stage for November. Advocates are also engaging in efforts to put abortion rights on the ballot in several other states.

Those on both sides of Issue 1 have said they expect higher turnout than usual for a special election, given the attention that has been given to it.