If Google isn't lying, Gboard allows one to turn off sending statistics to Google and also turn off personalized suggestion.

The news article is about keyboard apps developed by companies in China. Their "security flaws" are probably a feature for the government, not a bug.

There is a fine but significant difference between part serialization and part pairing.

If part serialization is done solely for protecting customer, there should be a registration/unregistration procedures that one can do to the phone components. Let say I buy a phone. There will be an app/UI that let me query my phone components source. A first-hand phone component serials combination will be pre-recorded in the phone manufacturer database. A refurbished phone done by the original phone manufacturer will also be pre-recorded. When I login my Google/Apple account in the phone, a non-public record will be written to the manufacture database. Before a phone is to be sold to 2nd hand market properly, there will be an UI/website for me to not just log out the account, but also clean up this non-public record (after asking for one's password of course.) A responsible phone shop will check if the phone is cleared of this kind of record, before accepting the sales from me to them.

So if a phone is stolen from me, those components within will become suspicious components. And as I report my loss of phone to the manufacturer database, components with those serial number will be marked as lost goods. These stolen components will still be usable, but if anyone is to buy a 2nd-hand phone from the market, they can open that app/UI for querying phone component source, and see if they still want to take the risk of buying and using a phone with stolen components. The importance of components marked as lost goods still being usable is, we need to protect users from getting the phone bricked by hackers polluting the manufacturer database.

Okay, all these above are just my dream. We are far far from it...

From my experience, Youtube remember any video that I have watched and let me either go through the history to rewatch it, or play from the time I left off that video last time. These records are communicated across devices throughout the same account.

For most people who aren't paranoid about privacy, these are useful features. Removing these functions or refusing to provide such functions in order to protect users against malicious police and judges? This make no business sense.

The human-rated capsule on top of an existing rocket contains emergency escape hardware so that the capsule can eject faster than the (exploding) rocket beneath them.

If you put a traditional capsule inside Starship, such safety mechanism will not work as intended without extreme moderation of Starship.

If you mean astronauts riding Dragon or Orion to space and then get onboard Starship as a space station, then yes, it is possible within two years.

But if you mean riding Starship to space, no, I don't think the safety standard of USA will drop that low in two years. We may see Starship function as moon lander first, before seeing it function as a vehicle to fly people from Earth directly.

Starship can go to space now. But it is extremely far away from safe human passenger flight. It took quite some years for Falcon 9/Dragon from routine cargo back-and-forth between ISS & Earth, to actual living humans sitting inside. We don't how long it will take for 1st safe Starship soft-landing. It is pointless to speculate how long will we take from that 1st safe landing to enough safety track record.

And for taking on commercial passenger airline, we still don't know how economic such a ticket will be. We know Starship is targeted to be so cheap that it shall take over all other old rocket launchers. But commercial passenger airline is another matter. Also, safe enough for astronaut is not the same of safe enough for business air travel.