Given the general, ongoing problems with security in embedded medical devices, I wonder whether this says at least as much about medical device design as it does about MagSafe design.

Gifted??!! What doublespeak.

There are apparently limits on the notifications in Washington state. According to this article, you can get them on Android phones but not iPhones. Why? Apparently because WA, in its wisdom, decided (or failed to decide) to fund the project. Instead, folks in WA will receive alerts on their phones via the national emergency network, but many seconds delayed. The article claims that may still be useful for WA's "big one", but the whole point of this exercise is to remove such delays.

Nice of vice.com to "redact" the original nature.com article for the presumably isotope-challenged, leaving absurd statements like this:

Everybody come on ;l;;gmlxzssaw.

That's a huge omission in their analysis. It'd also be interesting to know whether the IIHS also neglected (as in negligence) to measure or consider ACC's potentially more reliable crash avoidance features over an engaged but potentially inattentive driver.

Interesting and appropriate choice of words.

And how many extra impacts of the auto variety? Perhaps better "views" of the interior of the car in front or that "post" by the side of the road.

It's just like sports stats: how many attributes can we string together so that the DB query comes up with "most/best/biggest/longest/unique".

* "most watched", "scripted", "limited", "series", "to date" (this one's pushing things, but only a little), Netflix (implied by "streaming platform"), and the "caveat".

This is not news. It's been in the media for some time.

I think this gets to the heart of the matter. A few points that stood out for me: 1) "It would cost millions of dollars to replicate these in Linux.": Relative to Canonical, that may represent a lot of money. Relative to Microsoft, not so much. 2) "Microsoft has doubled down on Windows in recent years." Microsoft has also doubled down on hypervisor technology and Linux. 3) Microsoft has done similar gut-wrenching changes before, and pulled them off: Windows NT's kernel replacing Windows 95/DOS's, and 16-32-32 bit upgrades to Windows APIs. 4) Microsoft has also done extensive compatibility layers, such as POSIX that required lots of non-Windows additions at very low levels. And there's even Xenix in that long history. So Microsoft has shown more than enough determination to do things like this.

What happens to Canonical if folks start getting Linux distros (with or without a Windows GUI layer) and then support from Microsoft?

I remember being able to type a URL into Windows File Explorer in, what was it, Windows 95, and the totally integrated Internet Explorer rendered the page therein. In fact, it was such tight integration of IE that got Microsoft into trouble at the time. What goes around, comes around.

The original Twilight Zone series, "The Old Man in the Cave" (S5E7).

One I'd like to track down but recall far too little about is a live play that ran on NET/PBS probably in the 1960's about a future society in which everyone worked from home on some sort of terminals. It would be interesting to compare its take with where we are now.

Sounds like a scam to harvest location data. The "Privacy" section of the privacy policy says only this about location:

So if you give your permission to use your location data, which seems to be the point, so to speak, then they can do pretty much anything with it.

The NYT Mini puzzle regularly suffers from sloppy cluing. Here's another one, from today's puzzle:

C: Any letter in "ROY G. BIV"

A: COLOR

Well, no. Any such letter is a letter, not a color. It could also be the initial for the name of a color. But it's not actually a color. There are plenty of ways to clue this properly, but the Mini puzzle author and editor don't seem to care.

The poor cluing also extends well beyond such technical cases as the OP and the one above, including completely wrong senses of ordinary words.