Exactly this, eliminating pointless driving will reduce transport emissions more quickly and effectively than anything else.

X11 had built in remote support long before RDP, Telnet and serial terminals existed way before that too.

Stalling it early is not relevant to people who don't want to take vaccines, as no vaccines were available at this point.

No they complied with the letter, but not the spirit of the tests.
When lawyers or tax accountants do something similar they are celebrated.

The fact is its become endemic, containing it has totally failed. Those who are not young or healthy will absolutely be exposed to it sooner or later irrespective of what actions others take, and they are free to choose to take a vaccine (or not) too.

The risk calculations for the elderly will be different - being they have less time for any potential long term effects to manifest, they are more likely to have had kids already and less likely to have more, and they are at higher risk of serious effects if infected.

I don't think AMD even make wifi chipsets themselves?
There's no reason a laptop with an AMD CPU/GPU couldn't use an Intel wifi chipset, many of them even come on minipcie cards and could be swapped over.

I suspect what you're seeing is the manufacturers cheaping out and using lousy chipsets because they can get away with it. Generally components are sold based on claimed specs rather than actual performance.
Two different chipsets might both support 802.11AX, but one might also support monitor mode, come with superior drivers, be able to transmit with higher power and be more sensitive for receiving. But if you're only comparing the 802.11AX support both of these chipsets look to be equal when infact they are anything but.
The same is true of pretty much all components - SSDs and HDDs have wildly different performance/reliability characteristics, memory does too, ethernet chipsets etc.

People will differentiate between an AMD or Intel CPU but consider two different brands of SSD or wireless chipset to be identical.

During the 16th century very little was known about the moon. People could see it, but had no idea what it was or what might be there.
When you have thus unknown you get stories being made up for various reasons - just for fun, to placate curious kids, or to comfort people's fear of the unknown. In the case of the moon science has progressed sufficiently that these stories can now be disproven.

But then where do you draw the line? Is a work of fiction "misinformation" because it portrays something that does not exist, or does it get a pass because it's explicitly labelled as fiction?
How about religion? Most religions describe all powerful deities and scientifically unexplainable miracles, none of which can be proven. Do we class religious teaching as misinformation too?

Then there are other cases. Consider new research that contradicts previously established research? This happens all the time as science advances. Should a scientist's new theory be immediately discredited without giving it an opportunity for peer review and further research simply because it seeks to disprove some earlier research?
Science needs healthy debate, it needs people to challenge established facts either to prove or disprove them.

Bleach *does* destroy covid, that's factually correct.
It will also destroy the host creature, that's a fact too.
You'd have to be pretty stupid to believe one fact and ignore the other.
Bleach is useful and has its place for disinfecting non organic objects which might have been contaminated.

People stupid enough to drink bleach would actually reduce hospital workload during a similar pandemic, since they'd die much quicker than the infected and thus no longer require ongoing treatment.

That's the main problem, vaccines were rushed out without long term testing which understandably has people worried.

For people who were young and otherwise healthy the effects of COVID were generally minimal. Weighing up "risk of dying from COVID" vs "risk of long term side effects from minimally tested vaccine" some people made the choice not to take the vaccine, and why shouldn't they? That was their choice to make.

If in "a whole lot more years" there is proven a link between the vaccines and cancer, or other seriously negative side effects then who's going to have made the better choice?

There are a _LOT_ of things on the market today - food additives, medicines, etc which have various negative health effects, some of which are long term and serious.

A normal healthy human will have XX or XY, and be either female or male respectively. They will also have two functioning eyes, two arms, two legs etc. This makes up the vast majority, and it's what nature is *trying* to produce unless an anomaly occurs.

Anyone who falls outside of this definition is handicapped, either through genetic defects or through external factors.

They do.
Eggs here are labelled as "from caged hens" or "free range". Meat is similarly labelled depending on the type of animal it came from.

The post-slaughter processing is generally limited to cutting into smaller pieces for whole cuts of meat, but absolutely any processed meat should have the processing detailed and many processed meats are pretty disgusting.

Or you can prepend the word "Artificial" infront of what it's pretending to be, and then include a detailed ingredients list as well as the processes involved to get that list of ingredients to vaguely resemble what they're trying to emulate.

Exactly this, prominent and accurate labelling is extremely important. Deceptive labelling is designed to trick unsuspecting buyers and is immoral if not dangerous.

There are lots of people with allergies, intolerances, or just a desire to avoid certain things. People need to know what they're buying so they can make their own informed choices.

And most of this marketing "plant based" or other things like artificial sweeteners as somehow "healthy" is gross. Most of these heavily processed products are much worse than the original things they're seeking to replace. With honest information there would be very few takers for these products outside of the die-hard vegan crowd.

If you're using apple music you can play it directly from the phone itself, you don't need itunes at all.

Yes and the definitions of male and female have long ago been agreed by every language and culture around the world. If you want to go and start creating new definitions with their own meaning go right ahead, but don't try to change the established definitions that people have agreed on for thousands of years. All that does is cause confusion.

Yes there are some born blind due to genetic mutations, again this is not normal. During normal foetal development there will be 2 functioning eyes.

Also many blind people have suffered from external causes, not genetic mutations.

Also do you accept that someone blind is handicapped? So surely someone with mutated chromosomes is similarly handicapped. Or are you saying that we should normalise blindness, and allow people to voluntarily blind themselves?
Or would you say that someone who wanted to voluntarily blind themselves is mentally ill?