I didn't want any new "updates" from Samsung on the TV, so I kept rejecting its "Updated User Terms" earlier this year (after owning the TV for 5 years). I don't want "updates" - I just want it to work the same way it worked in 2020, when I bought it. But that's not possible, as the TV booted itself off my WiFi and won't connect to the WiFi any more. Could be just coincidence?

If I bought a pair of pants in 2020, and then 5 years later Levi's decided to "change the terms of the license" and turn them neon green, and if I didn't agree to turn them neon green they'd essentially stop working as pants...consumers would throw a fit and so would Congress. But with electronics, for some reason this is the accepted modus operandi and we as consumers just have to sit here and take it?

Ummm...children don't vote. So what does their access to social media have to do with voting?

I don't think social media is good for democracy in general (because it's manipulation through power, $$, and algorithm, and driven by outrage, not empathy), but that's a different discussion.

There's nothing illegal about a grocery store developing, marketing, and selling its own brand of corn, soda, cereal, etc. and nothing illegal about Amazon doing the same. BUT, that's not what Amazon does. Amazon:
A) Carefully tracks sales of all products to see where it could compete and steal your sales
B) Copies your designs - even trademarked, proprietary, or otherwise protected designs - sometimes even making a 'deal' with your same supplier
C) Buries your product behind pages and pages of "sponsored" products unless you pay the extortion, er, "advertising" fee to make it nearly impossible for customers to find your original product
D) Uses its immense size and power to exploit any successful product selling on its site for its own benefit, destroying the small, independent companies it claims to support.

I would never sell on Amazon or enter into a legal agreement to deal with Amazon, but for many companies they have no other choice and Amazon exploits them in ways that your local grocer and convenience store could never fathom.

Yes, poverty sucks, and it sucks for everyone. And it really sucks when society only seems to help certain people, or seems to help people from certain groups more than others. Historically and statistically we can see the trends of what society has done on average, but within those groups there is still tremendous difference in experiences. And, in general, the U.S. has done a terrible job of helping those in poverty finding a way out or even having a decent life, no matter the race, gender, veteran's status, disability status, etc. of the person. Most people in poverty stay there, and society is designed to keep them there.

I consider myself a progressive, but I don't mourn for the ending of many DEI programs, as many of them were A) not effective and B) just for show. We're not going to solve a society designed to keep the poor poor, and to keep the disfavored groups "in their place" with a few offices, catchy phrases, and websites - it's going to require real hard work to remake how our society works, so it works for everyone.

Isn't that also illegal (fraud)?
But I suppose if you do make a big amount of $$, you are then able to payoff the right people to make the "illegal" part go away?

So what? There are way more White people in the USA than black people. What difference does that make?

It matters because society made it matter, and chose some people to get access to wealth and others to not get that access. The data are extremely clear about this.
Look, scientifically, race isn't real. It is a thing humans made up to categorize people and hold people down, to enslave, to exploit, and to scapegoat. But the fact that race isn't biologically real doesn't stop the fact that we've made it matter by how we've treated people.

Ah, you want to play this game? Yes, poverty matters, and it matters for everyone. But even if you compare two children in poverty, a white child and a black child, the black child is STILL much more likely to be a victim of gun violence, to be in contact with police, to have worse access to health care, to live a more dangerous neighborhood, to attend a lower-funded school, and have worse health. Encouraging the hiring committee to interview one - just one - racially diverse person doesn't somehow magically solve all of that.

Shockingly, households with more working adults tend to make more money than households with fewer working adults. So what? By that logic, you should live your parents, especially while they are working because then you'd have 3 or maybe 4 working adults in the same household! So I don't get your point, other than maybe the racist idea that some people from some races don't work as hard as people from other races, or the racist idea that people from some races are not interested or not capable of living in two-parent households?

Yeah, making good choices consistently, like choosing between paying your rent, eating, or paying for your prescription medications...choose one...but make a *good choice!*

I'm not claiming anyone should use skin color as a crutch or any demographic characteristic as a license (e.g., "I'm Cuban, so therefore I can scream and yell at you as much as I want because Cubans are passionate!").

The parent, to whom I was referring my comment, was complaining about 'how hard it is to be white and male nowadays', and I simply pointed to the fact that the median while family has 10 times the resources of the median Black family. Lots of people are struggling right now, and the rich are getting richer while driving more people into poverty. But don't try to play the victim, no matter your race or gender or other demographics.

It's cheaper to maintain and drive an EV per mile than an ICE. People who know they want to Uber for a living tend to pick an EV when selecting a vehicle because it has a lower cost per mile and that savings goes right in your pocket.

The claim that corporation XYZ is "on a journey toward being more green" was always a scam and I never believed it, and politically the time is right for companies to pretend to act surprised that they won't meet their "green targets" because it might cost them money...so it makes sense for Uber to step back from those claims...which they were never really committed to anyway.

In addition to explicit racism, you ignore the facts: households led by white individuals have ten times the median wealth ($250,000) of the median wealth held by households led by black individuals ($25,000). https://www.census.gov/library...

It is an unfair world and there are huge differences by race; but your racist views have blinded you to the facts.

Most high level college athletes simply "attend" class online, anyway, and just do the bare minimum to stay eligible. I suspect we will see in the next 2-3 years a court ruling that does away with even that charade, and re-opens eligibility to college sports more broadly. And, why not? There are tons, for example, of unemployed football players (earning $0) who are better than starting collegiate players (earning six figures or more); and those unemployed football players are not allowed to compete to play at the collegiate level because they are "too old" or are "not a student," both of which seem clearly discriminatory. D-1 athletic departments should just be spun-off into their own organizations who happen to share campus space and a name, but operate independently with their own budgets and any professional players they care to hire.

And...what happens at the end of the three year deal? Does all that generated content go away, or suddenly become owned by Disney? Can you still generate content on the content that was generated with licensed content? Make it make sense.

On the other hand, people are doing this anyway (unlicensed), so might as well cash in while you can.

Haha! Funny because it's true.

I don't have any public social media accounts...but what if someone steals my photo and uses my name to create an account...am I somehow going to be kept from traveling because of a scam?

I had an aunt who had like 27 Facebook accounts (1 of which she controlled), all of which contained her photos and name (stolen), but only one of which contained extreme right-wing political content and cat photos (the one she controlled). Good luck trying to sift through 27 Facebook accounts full of scams, ads, get-rich-quick, crypto, etc. to find the extremism she actually posted....

Who needs AI? Just deny every claim and make it impossible, through a crooked appeals and court system, to appeal any denial decision. Done. (Grisham wrote a book about this many years ago, called the Rainmaker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

The call is coming from...inside the house!

Most acts of terrorism are generated domestically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...