Yes, they have the minimum number of qualifiers that they're legally obligated to include, which, as you point out, they bury as much as possible. That's not at all the case in the above video, which has no obligation to include qualifiers but does, clearly, and up front. Extremely un-ad-like.

between who are worse repeat offenders of ethical improprieties - journalists or corporations, I don't think I'm being Rage Against the Machine by believing that most investigative journalists are acting in good faith more often than corporations.

Okay, go prove to a court that a software vendor being allowed to change/add/remove what's included in their software updates is "ridiculous". Nobody gives a fuck. If Microsoft removed the entire operating system you licensed, or something significant such as the entire networking stack in an update they somehow forced you to take, you might have a case. But in the real world, arguing that removing Wordpad amounts to "changing the deal" is fucking laughable and only an obstinate dork would cry slippery slope. Every piece of software on the planet changes over time in updates, which sometimes includes removing functionality. It's as normal as the sun rising and setting.

How can software companies, with an "update", remove features that someone paid for?

It's sad that on a site like slashdot, it has to be pointed out that you didn't buy "the software", you paid for a license to use the software and to be provided updates to that software.

Your argument could be used to say that a user has some kind of standing to demand that software that you've paid for *not remove bugs* because you depend on that faulty line of code and you paid for it. And another customer demands that bug removed, because it's preventing them from using that software as *they want*. Surely you can see how stupid that gets quickly.

If you don't want the changes, then don't update. But you, as a customer, don't get to order each byte of that software "a-la carte" outside of the selective mechanisms for update selection as offered by the vendor. If you don't like the software from a vendor, don't license the next product.

I don't know what ads you watch, but I'm not sure I've ever seen one where the main person speaking says, "[tentative claim of innovation qualified by institution, field, and time] - but we're not sure yet, we're scaling up to validate it before we can say that with full confidence."

Ads are not known for qualifiers. I'm of the thought that some people are so desperate to be jaded/cynical that they ignore qualifying context and reject information outright. These people conflate having a critical mind (good) with knee jerk skepticism (yawn).

Sure, sure. We get it.

Yes, any person for whom this information is relevant for gets it and understands it perfectly fine. So who other than somebody who is desperate to feel like they have something "useful" to say in the absence of anything else gives a fuck?

Nobody, that's who.

RISC-V is also a an arch build target, and it's perfectly reasonable to say that a target platform in a build system supports such and such

I agree in principle, but:

The actual reason is that our society is still deeply ingrained with the essentially religious concept of punishing what the majority considers despicable. This is a form of social control, of keeping all individuals within a common framework. It is flexible over time, for example for most of human history slavery was perfectly acceptable, but it changes very slowly.

Child porn is one of the especially despicable things. Therefore, no amount of rational argument, no matter how correct, is going to convince people otherwise.

tl;dr: It's not about the children, it's about enforcement of social standards.

Over what period of time? I think one could argue that older data is less relevant, given the change in vehicles and the behaviour of people over the years.

It doesn't matter how much attention you pay to the road ahead, if you are deaf, and the vehicle approaches from behind you.

This. Non-slip surface, resiliant, fits in one hand, good battery life, useable lifetime of at least 5 years. That'd be pretty much my perfect phone.

What's that obsession with thin? Compensating for a beer belly?

Can't remember anyone ever posting anywhere that what they'd really want is a thinner iPhone.

I want a new SE. I want a phone I can use with one hand. I want a phone that after 5 years still holds a charge for 2 days. I want a phone that I can drop once or twice and it won't be damaged. Yeah, I know that's what cases are for, but I detest cases. I want a phone that doesn't slip out of fingers or pockets.

Also, I want a phone that detects when you are speaking way too loud into it and shuts down when you do. That would make a ton of people WHO THINK YOU NEED TO ALWAYS SHOUT stop doing that.

As well as nonsense, extreme partisanship, filter bubbles and circle-jerking.

It's probably one of the worst sources to train an AI on unless you're working towards fully automating social media so that no actual human every has to post or ready anything there.

It allows the company to get loans at better rates. Re-financing existing loans can cause huge savings going forward, which results in higher profits (because of lower costs).

Without qualifiers and context, this is an observation that one should stop finding useful or relevant to their view of the world by their early twenties.

Yes, organizations of people acquire power and then use that power to the degree that they believe themselves able to without putting said power at risk. Like .. whoa dude.