As you seems you need something more modern and with source available:
Have you given FreeDOS a try?
I my limited tests (retrogaming) it seems pretty stable and useful, though your embed use case might have different requirement (complex network stack or dedicated hardware interface on ISA cards that has only been validated against a couple of commercial DOS versions)

I'm talking about, if I may invoke fiction vaguely, a machine made in the likeness of the human mind. I'm talking about what separates us from software, and how for some jobs it isn't much at all. I'm talking about how slavery never ended and the wealthy would like to replace all of us with very small shell scripts. And to them, that's actually viable. They don't understand any of the reasons why it isn't; even the ones that are that smart aren't that educated in that way. If they were, they couldn't do what they do simply because they could see it's unsustainable.

That's very much my point. They are already doing a shit job because it was all that was available. Now what are they supposed to get, a shittier job? It's hard to find one that pays, as backwards as that is.

I'm not new, friend.

Please please please write a screed explaining how forcing Apple to use stuff that users want them to use and support things users want them to support with absolutely zero harm to other users who simply don't turn on any additional features which will be disabled by default is bad for consumers. And don't cheat and use AI, really lean into it.

Most people process fairly visually, some people especially so. You see the same set of logos presented over and over again alongside the logos you are already predisposed towards and they are associated in your mind.

Maybe there's actually an advantage to aphantasia...

If you cannot detect when things are changing then you are doomed to be confused by changes. Welcome to the rest of your life, where changes are going to keep coming faster and faster, like they have been doing for all of history.

Here's another way to put it into perspective. PG&E reported a profit last year of $2.2 billion. San Diego Gas & Electric had a profit of just under $1 billion. Southern California Edison, the third major utility in California, is part of a larger company that doesn't break out its profits, but it's presumably in the same range. And all that is before the two rate increases that have been approved since the start of the year.

Spending $6 billion over two decades would barely budge their profits. Even $20 billion would leave them making lots of money.

If you had a brain, you'd know.

It's overreach to prevent them from regulation of anything but navigable waterways.

"I await their decision on EV producers and the huge quantity of dangerous particulates EV's spew into the atmosphere."

The only particulates that EVs spew into the atmosphere are tire dust, and not much more than other vehicles - or if LRR tires are used, less than most.

If you mean during production, or pollution from generating power to charge the vehicle, even if charged purely with coal the lifecycle emissions are lower by the time an EV hits 70k miles.

TL;DR: Bullshit.

Apparently someone thinks shit like this happens on a whim.

For example, the non-compete rule was first proposed in January 2023... 15 months ago. God only knows how long it took to get through review committees or whatever other red tape it takes to get to that stage. That's almost certainly been cooking for at least two years.

The process of this current ruling to restore Net Neutrality started at least with Executive Order 14036... which was 2021.

Controlling insulin prices? There was movement on that last year as part of the Inflation Reduction Act (itself introduced in 2022) when it was added to the list of pharmaceuticals Medicare is allowed to negotiate prices for.

But sure, it's because it's an election year. That's gotta be it. No way were these things and more being quietly worked on for years...
=Smidge=

Just so we're clear, the ruling in that case is not so much "overreach" since it explicitly acknowledges the threats of pollution spreading between surface waters and affirms the EPA's role in protecting those waters, but rather is entirely hinged on a technicality in the definition not being strict enough. The EPA has jurisdiction, and therefore it's not overreach, but the wording defining what qualifies as protected wetlands isn't lawyer-y enough for SCOTUS.

THIS is the best argument you have?

=Smidge=

Oh noes politicians might have the power to prevent people from profiting from polluting our nation and planet unnecessarily, HOW TERRIBLE.

They ruled that how he was doing it was unconstitutional, not doing it at all. Got any facts to work with, or only things you don't understand and therefore shouldn't be pointing around?

Except that wasn't an example of overreach. Seasonal wetlands are still wetlands. Polluting them still affects both aquifers and the migratory waterfowl which use them.

Got any actual examples, not just more shitting on everything you don't care about, like other people?