It really won't. We already know how battery degradation works. Unless they bought trucks with too-small batteries to begin with, the trucks will wear out before battery capacity drops enough to require replacement.

My point is that expanding the acronym isn't useful, except perhaps to chemists who would already know what the acronym expands to. Explaining what PFAS are is useful. And the article did that:

PFAS are a class of 15,000 chemicals used across dozens of industries to make products resistant to water, stains and heat. Though the compounds are highly effective, they are also linked to cancer, kidney disease, birth defects, decreased immunity, liver problems and a range of other serious diseases.

They are dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down and are highly mobile once in the environment, so they continuously move through the ground, water and air. PFAS have been detected in all corners of the globe, from penguin eggs in Antarctica to polar bears in the Arctic.

So, I think the Guardian did a fine job of explaining what matters.

Per- And Polyfluorinated Substances. Did that help?

With 65,502 bytes left over.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

Not flat, 10% increase. Some of that increase may be due to more dual-income households, but we were already pretty well along that transition by 1999.

As a long time Android user, no, I do not recall that.

Let's do that: GDP per capita of the UK: $46k. GDP per capita of China: $12k. But maybe China does better at distributing the wealth? Nope. UK Gini coefficient: 35, China, 47 (higher is more inequality). Until recently China had phenomenal growth rates, but that's only because (a) they started from a very depressed level and (b) they mostly abandoned socialism. As Xi is reasserting more socialist policies their growth engine has largely stopped and their growth rate is currently below that of the UK. It's still positive at the moment, but if Xi continues what he's doing, it will likely go negative.

Socialism -- not social democracy, which is a thoroughly capitalist economy that accepts high but strongly progressive taxation to fund a strong safety net -- consistently drives economies into the toilet whenever applied on any scale larger than a kibbutz. Without fail, every time.

I don't think this is true. If you enable emergency mode video recording you have to enter your PIN to end the recording, but biometrics will still unlock the lockscreen. While the recording is going, hit the power button to activate the lockscreen, which will be unlockable with biometrics. You can also swipe up from the bottom (assuming gesture navigation) and switch to other apps. The device is not locked and not in lockdown mode while in emergency mode.

What you can do is press power and volume up to bring up the power menu, and then tap the "Lockdown" icon. That will lock the device and disable biometric authentication.

If you really, really want to lock it down, power the device down, or reboot it and don't log in. Android's disk encryption scheme uses your PIN/pattern/password ("lockscreen knowledge factor", or LSKF) along with keys stored in secure hardware to derive the disk encryption keys. It would make for a long post to go into all of the details, but given the hardware-enforced brute force mitigation,if the attacker gets a device in this state it's extremely difficult to decrypt any of the credential-encrypted data on the device without your LSKF. This is particularly true on devices that implement "StrongBox" (all Pixels, some Samsungs, some others). Android StrongBox moves some crucial functionality, including LSKF authentication and LSKF brute force resistance, into a separate hardened, lab-certified[*] security processor with its own internal storage, a "secure element".

Of course, note that appellate courts in the US have split on whether or not your LSKF can be compelled. Some have ruled that unless the PIN/pattern/password is itself incriminating, it's no different than compelling the combination to a safe, which has long been held to be constitutional.

[*] For anyone interested in the details, the required certification is Common Criteria EAL 4+ (5+ is recommended, and common, many devices meet 6+), using protection profile 0084 for the hardware and equivalent "high attack potential" evaluation for the software, plus AVA_VAN.5 penetration testing, all performed in a nationally-accredited security testing lab. While certification isn't a guarantee of security (nothing is), the required certification applies the highest level of scrutiny you can get for commercially-available devices. Apple also uses a similarly-certified SE in their devices, but it's not clear whether they use it for LSKF authentication, or whether they use their (uncertified) Secure Enclave.

Maybe not hundreds, but at least dozens. For most people their phone is their digital assistant in all sorts of ways... not only for communication for for calendaring, looking up random things, reading the news or books, listening to music, getting directions, checking their bank account/brokerage, doing calculations, fitness tracking, managing shopping and to-do lists... the list goes on and on.

I guess my joke was not obvious enough.

Well to be fair, those are kept secret. Police officers can't have random members of the public calling them disrupting their consumption of donuts and coffee.

Ah yes. Ghandi. White people love to point to him despite knowing diddly squat about him. My great-grandfather was a close friend of his, and travelled with him to Britain when he was petitioning for India's independence.

Firstly, disrupting traffic is not "mayhem", it would absolutely fit in with Ghandi's MO of non-violent protest. Ghandi was not a "sit in the corner, beg the King to give up his power over you, and hope he does despite having no reason to". But status quo bootlickers do try to paint that picture because it suits them.

Secondly, as a South African from a family of civil rights activists, and as someone with decades spent as an activist and advocate of civil rights movements, I can tell you that you know SHIT about the Rodney King riots. Of course, there were a lot of own goals scored, and much of the rioting was self-defeating. But it has been completely re-cast in the decades since and portrayed as a mindless mob achieving nothing. That's not at all true. The violence of '92 was absolutely responsible for moving the civil rights movement forward, as the incumbent old white men were fighting tooth and nail to keep it at bay. Peaceful protests by African Americans had yielded no results. MLK and Malcolm X were mostly peaceful in their MOs but that didn't work out for them. The COINTELPRO program which pretty much proves that attempts at peaceful resistance will be met with military level opposition.

But anyway. I can see we won't agree. Let's part ways here.

Just to be a pedant, a retaliation is by definition a consequence. Everything else you said is correct, other than that.

The word retaliation does not imply invalidity or injustice. Just that an action was taken as a response to another action. That's it. That's all it means.

Well, that's not really as hard a line as you think.
If I believe (and I do) that public apathy towards the climate crisis is going to get us all killed, what do you propose I do?
If I believe that commercial interests have hijacked our politics, what do you propose I do?

Some issues, by their very nature, require disruptive attention gaining action. Now, whether or not that's effective is a different question, but the idea that people are bound to sit along for the ride while the inert masses drag their country off a cliff because disruptive protests are an invalid form of expression just doesn't sit with me.

I know this is a grey area and I'm open to alternative views. But as it stands, I don't know how to get the public to pay attention to, for example, the climate crisis without disrupting the public. Any other ideas?

lol