But it is daft to treat that "new" device differently when it is clearly the same device.

Because the manufacturer of the device cheaped out, and didn't give each device a unique serial number. The OS can't really tell the difference between different devices.

In which case they wouldn't be able to handle it in the same port either!
No, this is MS daftness.

Since nobody uses thumb drives for high performance computing, this change is a sensible improvement.

That may well be true, but Microsoft's implementation of how I can change the option leaves a lot to be desired.
You can change the policy setting for each external device, and the policy that you set remains in effect if you disconnect the device and then connect it again to the same computer port.
I have multiple ports on my machine. I may plug a drive into any of them. I want a device to be treated the same regardless of which port I happen to plug it into "this" time. But MS has decided that I have to set things for each port separately. Why? (and this isn't the first time I've seen that the same device in different ports is treated a as different object).

This permits passengers -- particularly those on the platform -- to be directed to doors that will be less busy.

That isn't how people work.
They want to be by the door closest to where there are more free seats - which is more likely to be the one where there are most people alighting.

Without it you could get better "standard" chip speeds, and it made more sense for the expected workload.

A pity - most other portable charger are significantly bigger (in particular, much thicker). I'd bought mine (the 5600mAh) because it was the most suitable size.

We don't have them because we won - twice.

No, that's not why we don't have them. There was a trial for them a few years back, but it was the normal government-inspired mess, so went no further.

Do you really want to bug those user's repeatedly with self signed cert validation prompts...

No - you set up a Web base CA that let's them request certificates (and that CA ensures that they are only valid for local-network names), and publish the root certificates on that site, with instructions for how the users can load them into their systems/browsers.

Then they don't get prompted for locally-issued certificates.

There is no need for an official CA to issue a cert for Server1 at IP address 10.2.1.2.

But certificates are given for names , not addresses, and you don't specify any address in the request.