Remember when new versions of operating systems introduced new features that people actually wanted?

How is such a thing even legal, for children or for adults.

In Windows 8 you had to perform a secret mouse move in order to shut down the computer. People didn't hate it just because; it was really a terrible user interface.

But incidentally, Google will become the gatekeepers of what you can install or not install on your phone. And governments will be able to take advantage of that. Think about an undemocratic regime asking them to provide a list of everyone who installed a VPN app. Or preventing the installation of such an app.

the onboard fully loaded battery

Now that's a tiny, unimportant detail that the article failed to mention! It makes you believe that the car ran only on self-generated power when it's not the case.

But then why don't we hear calls for the ban of Cisco network hardware in the name of national security?

I thought that we had to stay away from Huawei products. Now it seems that by using American routers we get to be spied all the same? And by both the Americans and the Chinese: through official spying programs by the former, and through security vulnerabilities by the latter.

It's not that I agree with Macron or disagree in general with your comment, but I think that you're simlplifying too much.

Not a failed decolonization, not stuffing people into projects on the periphery of cities, not using them as cheap and expendable labor,

In Europe only the rich live in city centers. Most people live in the periphery. The cars and the shops that the protesters are destroying belong to people who live in the periphery as well, and probably it was everything they had managed to build in a life of work.

What you have here is not too different from what the US was facing and still in some part is. It's the same racial problem the US has. These people are not some sort of immigrant who "have no right to be here". What you're dealing with is people who came from the former colonies to France when France decided to abandon them. And these people are French. They always were. They came to France and back in the 60s when France had a need for cheap labor (like most of Europe), they were very welcome. They were stuffed into housing projects that were quickly slapped together at the periphery of the cities (after all, who wants to deal with "those" people as neighbors, right?), in housing that was even at the time substandard and which saw little, if any, improving.

They were never taken by force into France as animals and made to work for free to build France's economy, as it was done to African Americans. They came to France by their own will, looking for a better future. Their colonies weren't "abandoned" by France, it's them who rejected to be part of France, and rightly so.

These people were pretty much left alone by the state, barely accepting their existence.

France has a generous welfare state, it's no neoliberal paradise.

It was powerful where it mattered and was developer-friendly. It was the first console to target grown-ups, which made it more cool than the competition. Behind itself it had Sony's name, technological expertise and financial power. Plus, it was easily piratable. People just didn't want anything else back then.

Barbarian? Most of them come from the Romans!

Skype's user interface after it was purchased by Microsoft was awful. It was a form of violence. Only the user interface of Teams is worse.
Plus, Skype never really worked correctly for me when I logged in on more than one device. I got missed messages and calls, and in the end I simply asked people to contact me by other means.

It's a whole lot easier to ban an asshole for breaking a rule if the rule exists.

How so? Can he sue me if I ban him and there is not a specific rule to cite as the reason? Or maybe if there is such a piece of text I can sue him if he keeps sending hateful patches for GCC even though I told him to go away?

Because the only thing that keeps people civil is a piece of text that tells them to be so.

The article said that "people in the private sector" were "creating cryptocurrencies", not that they were adopting BTC.

When the central bank started reacting to COVID with what we call printing money and responding to the crisis, a lot of people in the private sector felt that printing of money could lead to hyper-inflation and these private sector people decided to respond by creating cryptocurrencies.

Since the government is devaluing my country's currency, I will create my own currency, which has no value at all. Surely something might go wrong with this plan?