And your car will someday refuse to boot without them.
The issue is not that dark forces will be able to monitor your vehicle without your knowledge, it's that once the capability is common, you simply won't be able to get a license (car or driver) or insurance, without clicking "YES" to ALLOW MONITORING on the contractual EULAs. So you can't object - you agreed to it.
... how can you argue that at all, let alone suggest it has a gender bias?
... unless there's a sue-able multi-billion dollar corporation behind it. Even then, big automakers are barely able to afford recalls and liability suits now - a major wrongful death suit from a errant self-driving car will take out a smaller firm or make their insurance impossible to pay.
Same thoughts apply to hardening exploitable code. If it's common to old and new OS and easily fixed (vulnerability is lessened) then it probably should be updated.
The interesting question is: should an OS vendor be able to sell a later generation of OS as "more secure" than a previous one as a feature to induce users to migrate to it, (clearly Microsoft's position on Win 8.1 vs Win 7 ) or does it have a responsibility to make all released product as reasonably secure as it can based on what it knows to and define features as capabilities, performance, etc outside of security?
I think it's fair for Microsoft to tout improvements like more secure kernel design or other elements that are core architectural advantages of a new OS (which cannot reasonably be replicated in earlier versions) but limiting fixes to common libraries, present in old and new OS, which have been found to be insecure, that could be patched for minimal effort in the old OS, to create an artificial distinction between old and new is not a security feature difference, it's a churlish forcing function. Win 8.1 is not better on security than Win 7 if the part of that difference depends on selectively responding to vulnerabilities.
Ironically, toward the end of it's life, XP got better support than Vista, because a Vista was a short-lived, poorly received follow-on that was quickly succeeded by Win 7. I'll predict that 3 years from now, after Win Next (9.0 or what ever) has been shipping for a while, the install base of Win 7 will still be far higher than that of Win 8.x and support (Microsoft and 3rd party drivers/apps) will be much better for Win 7 than it will be for Win 8.x. No doubt Microsoft will say it's most secure OS at that time will be Win 9.x but if it stopped providing critical patches to the second most popular OS way back in 2014, there's going to be trouble. (Anybody want to bet Microsoft at some point will be providing patches to vulnerabilities in Win 7 that they DON'T bother to do for Win 8.x because no one will care about "Vista-Next" anymore?)
If you ever had a situation where your ISP connection was faster than local routing/networking gear, then you either have some kind of fantastic high bandwidth fiber ISP connection and you've cheaped-out on the quality of your infrastructure gear (very slow equipment) or you have a normal ISP connection and you got REALLY cheap about the quality of your infrastructure gear. (which is almost impossible unless you're using ~10MB stuff from the last century) You internal network wireless/wired should always be much faster than your ISP.
...or monitored mode (where all traffic is spoofed to a Chinese gov't collection site)?
Boy, and I'd always heard it was a lot harder than that to get an unlocked phone
Simple solution: Any serious University with applicants into any science-based degree program should no longer accept Wyoming high school certificates as meaningful and should require applicants from that state to test out to verify that they have a proper background to enter the program. When the climate deniers who run the Wyoming establishment start having their offspring turned away and stigmatized by Ivy League and other prominent schools, watch that curriculum change back to accurate science rather quickly.
.. but I assume questions were given before it occurred. I would have like to have asked RMS, what happened to his assertion hat source code transparency will protect us from very bad code, because many people's eyes are on it. But everybody could look at OpenSSL source for years and see the potential for Heartbleed and it never got caught until it was too late.
... in any dense urban environment, then.
In a big storage server, that could amount to few kilos, perhaps