>"It's 2024 - people still use Windows? Why?"

1) Because it "comes with the computer"
2) Because people don't know any better
3) Because it is what many know
4) Because some businesses force it on everyone
5) Because, sometimes, it is needed for certain applications

That said, all my computers run only Linux, have for decades, and will likely continue to do so (plus hundreds of machines I am responsible for). And probably way more than half of MS-Windows machines out there could run Linux and do what the users need, just fine. The SNAFU's with MS-WIn 11 artificial hardware "requirements" will likely open more opportunity for Linux on millions of otherwise perfectly suitable machines that will, otherwise, end up in landfills.

Better questions is to ask are: Why do certain popular commercial software vendors not support Linux? Why do we allow a near-monopoly (MS) to essentially force manufacturers to include their OS on most, if not all, of their computers? How much more abuse will MS-Windows customers tolerate before jumping ship?

>"Disables biometric authentication on an iPhone."

And on Android starts an emergency services call.

So on Android, simply turn off the phone. Any reboot always requires the non-biometric unlock.

Or go into settings and choose "show lockdown option" which puts a button on your lockscreen (and power button menu) that instantly disables all biometrics and lockscreen notifications.

>"Biometrics: Credentials that can be stolen off your body"

If DNA or fingerprints, they are "credentials" that can be stolen off anything you have touched or been around, and for a loooong time. They are pretty bad overall methods for confirming who you are if you care about abuse or security. And in the case of DNA, it *really* invades privacy, by its nature.

If you must use biometrics, the only reasonable one I have seen so far is deep vein palm scan. You are not leaving that data all over the place, is difficult to illicitly obtain, and it has live-sensing built-in. Plus it is fast, simple, accurate, easy and cheap.

>"It does not seem that capping charging on linux laptop is a generic thing. Is it?"

TLP can manage battery life and restrict charging to whatever ranges wanted.

See https://linrunner.de/tlp/usage... control through /etc/tlp.conf Edited /etc/tlp.conf and uncommented the two battery thresholds and it works to keep the battery charged no more than X amount.

>"I also don't see that option on my android phone."

Unfortunately, it entirely depends on your brand of phone and version of Android. Recent Samsungs all support it, both on phones and tablets (but for some reason, not watches). On Samsung, it is called "Protect battery" and is hard-coded to 85% only.

>"I don't understand this obsession in the media about how quickly people can charge their EVs."

Two reasons: Long distance travel, and for those who can't charge at home. And those are both valid. But for other times, slow would be fine, if it is better for the batteries.

>"If we're genuinely interested in conserving finite natural resources,[...], we really need to look more systematically at how we get from A to B on a daily basis"

I think we need to look at how we produce energy, primarily. The solution will most likely need to be nuclear fission or fusion. The current thought of covering the planet in [expensive and life-limited] solar panels and windmills and using tons of low-life batteries isn't going to cut it. Also, transportation is just 36% of energy usage, and a whopping 65% of our electric power is lost in conversion and transmission.

>"The way we typically do it nowadays, private cars that take up massive amounts of space & require huge amounts of infrastructure & bureaucracy [...]"

Alas, we are spoiled by this, and trying to force people to do something else is likely to fail (and has failed). I admit, I am spoiled as well. I want to get into my vehicle how and when I want, with storage, and go directly and quickly to where I want to go, in peace, comfort, and silence, and return back the same way. It really is a miracle, and incredibly wasteful, and I love it.

>"There's a plethora of alternatives that are more efficient & convenient"

Efficient, yes. Convenient for most use cases and areas, no.

I keep cell phones a "long" time, too.

My previous phone was a Moto G5 Plus and I used it from 2017 to 2021 (4.5 years). Before that was a Nexus 5 which I used for 4+ years. This current phone, Samsung A52 5G, is already 2.5 years old and will probably get at least 4 years out of it.

I don't get these people who replace their phones every year or two, especially when they get the $1000+ flagships. Kinda crazy. I like the Samsung A series, has most of the flagship features but for 1/3 of the cost. (This one has an OLED screen, in-screen fingerprint sensor, decent triple camera, SD slot, real headphone jack, great wifi/bluetooth, lots of storage and memory and speed, etc; mostly just missing the sexy metal casing and being ultrathin, neither of which I care about).

>"The manufacturers want you to replace your phone every 2 years"

Perhaps, but they can do that with just junk updates.

>"so they will just use this to shrink the batteries."

Nope. That would reduce the operating time. Consumers won't go for that. Operating time is even more important than long-term battery life.

>"There are many scenarios where a life extending charge method could be really helpful"

And that holds true, even if it takes LONGER to charge (not saying it would). I have my Linux laptop and my Android phone both set to charge to 85% maximum to prolong life (unfortunately, no such setting for my smart watch). I also charge with a slower (lower amperage) charger on the phone, for the same reason. Also do that on my NiMH battery charger- lowest rate (even says in the manual that will prolong battery life). 99% of the time, I don't care how long it takes with these devices, because it is going on the charger at night and certainly will not take more than 8, 9, or whatever hours.

If I had an EV, I would want to charge it the same way at home, at a low rate and not to full. I would always have at least 10 hours, and usually much longer downtime.

>"What do you think people search for and use on health websites?

This isn't "health websites", it is only "hospital websites." Probably typical things: Address, visiting hours, mission, donations, events, employment, phone numbers and other contact info, directions, history, parking, staff, policies, newsletter, services, so many things.

>" Nothing sensitive? Ever?""

Pretty darn rare, probably. People are far, far more likely to use a general search engine for that (and for most people that is probably Google, the worst offender in tracking) and also sites like WebMD.

>"Hospitals -- despite being places where people implicitly expect to have their personal details kept private -- frequently use tracking technologies on their websites[...] and their findings were that 96 percent of their websites transmitted user data to third parties. "

So? That just means it is a typical a public website. I think you will find that almost all large websites have such tracking stuff on them. Marketing always wants to know as much as they can about who is visiting and why, and also link into social crap. Why would anyone think it would or should be less for "hospital" websites? This has nothing to do with protected or sensitive health information.

I hate all this tracking, and use active methods to block it, but I don't understand the thrust of this "study."

>"The centerpiece of our product offering is now the DuckDuckGo browser"

Right. Another Chrom*. No thanks. Also no support for Linux, so double no thanks.

>"Please note: Setting up and managing Personal Information Removal requires a Mac or Windows computer."

Again, no Linux support. So no thanks.

>"To subscribe to Privacy Pro and use our VPN, first download the DuckDuckGo Browser on mobile or desktop and subscribe to Privacy Pro in the browserâ(TM)s settings."

It is chrom* and also no Linux. So yet again, no thanks.

That said, I still use duckduckgo as my primary web search engine, with startpage as secondary.

>"People will die and it is because capitalism does not reward people who go above the call of duty to prevent loss of life."

What a ridiculous statement.

That has NOTHING to do with "capitalism"- do you think a communist-run airline would do better? Think again.

The reality is that you get the word out, and we are free to choose a different company. That airline will be punished by the market. That is over and above any other repercussions if something does actually go wrong.

>"I understand this post may put me on a list, but I do not know how else to raise this concern except by talking loudly to the internet in hopes someone hears."

You are doing exactly what an informed and concerned consumer SHOULD do. "Word-of-mouth" info is extremely powerful.

Here, the city buses do a real number on the pavement where they stop/sit/launch. I think there is concrete below the asphalt pavement at many of the stops, but the pavement above it will still develop deep ruts and waves.

>"Motorcycles are unfortunately NOT more efficient or less polluting than modern econoboxes on average"

That entirely depends on the motorcycle and car you are comparing. A small, modern motorcycle can get 70+ MPG and has all the same pollution controls as most modern cars. The AVERAGE of passenger vehicles on the road in the USA is 25.3 MPG. And I will count a dozen huge SUV's for each econobox car on the road. My motorcycle is a 2011, has only a single CAT, and has massively powerful 4cyl 16v 1.4L engine, but still gets 44MPG, which is twice the efficiency of my non-SUV 2009 car, and it emits half the CO2 and probably still pollutes less NO2/etc.

>"Automobiles, even the biggest and dumbest coal-rolling dudebro trucks with the shortest sidewalls, do basically zero damage to roads."

*ALL* vehicles damage the roads. It just varies by weight per tire. And huge battery-powered SUV's weigh a LOT. GMC Hummer EV weighs more than 9,000 pounds! The Rivian weighs 7,148. A Honda Civic sedan is about 2,800. Of course, it is true that commercial tractor/trailers blow all that away and cause, by-far, the most damage, but you also have to factor in the weight per square area of TIRE contact, then it doesn't seem quite as extreme.... at least until they hard brake :)

Well, I did say "maybe."
There is a bit of competition, but, admittedly, not much yet.