I imagine that the first question after installing Linux would be "Now how do I sync albums that I bought on the band's Bandcamp page onto my iPhone?" As far as I'm aware:

- iTunes for Windows uses the Apple Mobile Device Service driver to sync over a USB cable, and drivers don't run in Wine.
- libimobiledevice on Linux can write files to an iPhone but not the music database that the included Music app uses.
- Though the VLC app can play music from files, nothing but the included Music app can make playlists containing both purchased music and rented music from the roommate's Apple Music family plan. Not all bands are with a label that's on Apple Music.

I left Windows on her laptop and turned off S Mode.

Many new computers with Windows 11, such as a Lenovo IdeaPad that my roommate received as a birthday gift, come set to "S Mode" and will not run applications from outside the Store. There is a way to disable S Mode permanently on a particular PC. This shows a sequence of alert boxes whose wording may be scary to particularly nontechnical users such as my roommate.

In my part of the United States, both Kroger and Dollar Tree impose a surcharge for cash back on a debit transaction. Walmart still does not.

The claim was that trade deficits were the closest thing to an emergency that the President could find as a justification. I explained that the fentanyl use epidemic was the other justification, which some people might have an easier time accepting as an emergency.

As I understand the executive order abolishing de minimis entry, the tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China aren't based on trade deficit as much as on these countries' failure to cooperate in preventing fentanyl and fentanyl precursors from getting smuggled into the USA.

I do very much understand what you're saying and it certainly adds to the complexity. One cannot put sociological or psychological factors on a box.

That aspect of the problem is indeed going to be much harder to deal with than, say, salt, trans fats, or known carcinogenic compounds.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you can do about those aspects - financial incentives help a little, but honestly I don't believe they make a huge difference - which is why I've concentrated on unsafe levels of ingredients, because although we don't know exactly what those should be, we've at least got a rough idea for some of them. It's going to be a delicate one, though -- you don't want to overly restrict sources of sugar because diabetics can suffer from crashes due to excessively low sugar just as badly as excessively high levels, and some items get unfairly maligned (chocolate, per se, isn't bad for you, it's the additives, and indeed particularly high percentage chocolate can be helpful for the heart).

But, yes, I absolutely agree with your overarching point that the problems are primarily psychological and sociological. I just don't have the faintest idea of how these can be tackled. Jamie Oliver tried (albeit not very well, but he did at least try) and the pushback was borderline nuclear, and that was where there was clear and compelling evidence of significant difference in health and functionality. If you can barely escape with your life for saying eating better reduces sickness and improve concentration, and pushing for changes where these two factors essentially dictate whether a person is functional in life, then I don't hold out hope for change where it's more ambiguous or the economics are much tougher.

There are papers arguing that smoothies aren't as good as eating real fruit because it seems that there's actually a benefit to having to break down cell walls, even at the expense of not getting 100% of the nutrients from it. However, cooking food breaks down cell walls, although obviously not to the same degree. It's not clear that breaking down cell walls is harmful, even if it's not beneficial.

A lot of ultra-processed foods have been accused of having unhealthy levels of certain ingredients (usually sugars or salt) and certain styles of cooking can add harmful compounds.

It would seem reasonable to say that there's a band at which a given ingredient is beneficial (analogous to a therapeutic threshold), with levels above that being increasingly harmful, eventually reaching a recognised toxic threshold. In terms of the harmful compounds from cooking, it seems reasonable to suggest that, below a certain level, the body's mechanisms can handle them without any issue, that it's only above that that there's any kind of problem.

So it would seem that we've got three factors - processing that can decrease benefits, ingredients that follow a curve that reaches a maximum before plunging, and processing that can increase harm.

Nobody wants to be given a complicated code that they need to look up, but it would seem reasonable that you can give a food a score out of three, where it would get 3 if you get maximum benefit and no harm, where you then subtract for reduced benefit and increased harm. That shouldn't be too hard for consumers, most people can count to 3.

Yeah, understood, food is going to vary, since it's all uncontrolled ingredients and processing itself is very uncontrolled. So take two or three examples as a fair "representative sample". Further, most manufacturers can't afford to do the kind of testing needed, and our understanding of harm varies with time. No problem. Give a guidebook, updated maybe once every couple of years, on how to estimate a value, which can be used, but require them to use a measured value if measured, where the value is marked E or M depending on whether it's estimated or measured.

It's not perfect, it's arguably not terribly precise (since there's no way to indicate how much a food item is going to vary), and it's certainly not an indication of any "absolute truth" (as we don't know how beneficial or harmful quite a few things are, food science is horribly inexact), but it has to be better than the current system because - quite honestly - it would be hard to be worse than the current system.

But it's simple enough to be understandable and should be much less prone to really bizarre outcomes.

There is danger to the user's bank accounts from running an app that was made for the primary purpose of enabling financial scams, social-engineering the user into draining their life savings. The previous featured article states that the initial set of countries where Google plans to put this policy change into effect (Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand) are hotbeds of scamware distributed through unknown sources.

Correct: AHRA's carveout extends only to noncommercial use. However, I still find it useful to distinguish a statutory "carveout" from a (theoretically negotiated) "license", even when there's something in between the two called a "compulsory license".

In case anyone's confused:

The quotation was from the lyrics of the song "I Want Your Sex" from George Michael's 1987 solo debut Faith . That song's lyrics are from the point of view of the male in a heterosexual monogamous couple: "I can't take much more, girl / I'm losing control" (my emphasis). Michael's turn toward specifically gay lyrics would come several years later, starting around 1998.

Again, that depends on the country. Slashdot's home country (the USA) has the Audio Home Recording Act, which creates a carveout for private copying of sound recordings.

Still no remote revocation.

Over time, a smaller fraction of newly released movies and TV series have been made available on DVD. Instead, many are exclusive to a streaming service.

Your spelling implies that you learned English in Britain or another Commonwealth country. I don't know how the law works in Britain, but in Slashdot's home country (the USA), some of the carveouts for individual use in the copyright statute apply to "the owner of a lawfully made copy." (The statute defines "copy" as a physical object in which a work is fixed.) See, for example, Title 17, United States Code, sections 109 (regarding resale of an individual copy) and 117 (regarding copying a computer program into RAM for use).

Google has always been a crawler, not a directory. Its crawl was seeded at times with data from Dmoz Open Directory Project, a directory that Netscape acquired in 1998 and ran as an open database to compete with Yahoo.

One downside of the directory model is that the operator of a newly established website may not know what search engines its prospective audience are using.

A second downside is time cost of navigating the red tape of keeping the site's listing updated everywhere. This has included finding where in each directory's detailed categorization a site belongs and understanding what each directory expects in each field of the submission form so as to avoid a binding rejection that can delay a site's addition for months. It has also included solving CAPTCHAs meant to deter spammers from overloading a search engine with low-quality sites. In fact, the first CAPTCHA I ever saw was on AltaVista's submission circa early 2000, and it surprised me enough to try opening the site in Lynx to grab a screenshot and complain about its inaccessibility on Slashdot. It took until fourth quarter 2003 for inaccessibility of CAPTCHA to be recognized by a notable organization.

A third is monetary cost to submit a listing. At one point, some search engines were start charging a fee to crawl a site. In particular, Overture's GoTo.com pretended to be a search engine but was 100 percent pay-for-click ads. (Imagine if Google had a search engine just for AdWords listings, and that were the default.)

J. R. R. Tolkien indeed suggested that Men hunted Hobbits for sport. See "LOTR: Did Men Hunt Hobbits To Extinction For Sport?" by Alice Rose Dodds, as well as a quotation from Tolkien's The Nature of Middle-earth .