>"But I would say that insurance should pay if the scan turns up anything requiring medical attention - early detection saves money."

I would say it is very unlikely any insurance will retroactively pay for a non-medically-indicated (non-physician-ordered and with justification) scan. Even if it picks up something that is a valid concern. However, they should cover further investigation/treatment of something discovered. Including further scans to clarify and follow-up scans.

It would be insane to not get a copy of any imaging. You can't rely on some health system storing your stuff for more than X years and it will get silently deleted. And if you need an old image for a baseline comparison, you will be out of luck. Plus, if you wait until later, you might forget to get it, or not remember where you had it taken, or the company might have gone belly-up or sold and systems changed.

>"I've always wondered if there might be a benefit to a full body scan along these lines not for its own sake, but for what it could tell me later in life when something actually is wrong. Does having a "before" image help to weed out things"

I came to point out this exact case. There is probably a good reason to have a body scan sometime in mid-life as a "baseline" so you have something to compare back to. I believe this will probably become routine at some point. Maybe at age 45 or something. But for now, a full-body MRI it is very slow and expensive. A CT scan would be much faster and cheaper, but not as good.

Of course, when comparing back, it might still not be ideal because the resolution might have been too low, or would have needed some special contrast, or different exposure, or needed to be a PET, or something else.

And what happens when you wash it?

>"India is weighing a proposal to mandate always-on satellite tracking in smartphones for precise government surveillance"

What? This is the same India that just tried to force non-removable government spyware on everyone's phones. Then claimed it wasn't spyware, could be removed, that it couldn't spy on anyone using it, and then claimed it was always going to be voluntary to use?

It is obvious that they are pushing the populous to see what they can get away with.

>"You do realize whenever you do login, they connect the unknown user tracking to your login"

On this machine, my main home Linux desktop, I have never logged into to ANY Google service/site at any time, ever.

>"giving users personalized cards that showcase their top channels, interests, and a personality type based on their watch habits."

There are reasons I have never logged into YouTube and watch everything as a non-user. They still learn and show related or relevant stuff, but probably just tied to a generic cookie s897fds8d7fds89sdf7sdfs9v8ds7df89a0b

I very much miss the "real" Netflix (Netflix Disc) service.

Unfortunately, my city's library system is not very good. Their collection sucks (mostly old DVD's, nothing remotely recent, and I believe nothing BluRay) and much of their "collection" is just some strange Hoola/Overdrive streaming service.

Oh, and they don't list, online, what media anything is (DVD, BlueRay, 4K), everything says "DVD" (of which I have no interest).

>"I actually know quite a few people with Fold phones and precisely zero of them think the creases are in any way a discouragement"

My point (which probably wasn't clear) was that the links and info provided for this article didn't show anything about how it folded or that there are creases or that it didn't lay flat, etc. But the youtube review did show that useful info (and a lot of the positives too).

>"Make no mistake these phones are not designed for everyone, they are a niche product for a minority."

Indeed... my mouth was watering over it. Super cool and useful. But it isn't practical for me for the way I would want to use it, and probably most others. And that is even before the $3,000 price tag.

Also, there is something a bit off-putting that one of their main listed features is that the *FIRST* screen repair is half price!!! Their marketing department needs some serious reprimand on that one. :) LOL!

>"Literally every Samsung Fold phone has a 1st party case (as well as 3rd party cases) that are designed specifically to cause the phone to sit flat with the camera bulge."

It might have that 1/3 lay flat, but it will be considerably higher than the other 2/3, so it will not be flat in totality. It just won't be rocking on the camera.... which is a plus, but something potential customers might not expect.

In any case, it is a marvel of technology and I wish them the best. But if someone gave me one for free, I am not sure I would want to carry around something so bulky and heavy. So I encourage someone to send me a free one and I will try it out and report back ;)

So many questions, so many dollars.

And wham, pre-reviews show folding and creases, like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Thick and heavy for a phone, but if you want something that can be an actual tablet, you gotta make some serious trade-offs. When when using it as a phone OR tablet on a table, there is that bulge with the cameras so it can't sit flat. And that inner big screen is soft and scratch-prone. Hmm.

>"In practice, it is seen more as an unwanted evil, like car crashes, than as bad choices that needs the attention of family members or mental health professionals."

What it needs to be is children not having unsupervised access to devices that have unrestricted internet access. Social media is certainly detrimental, but there are millions of other "dangerous to children" sites/apps, not to mention texting or media'ing to/from strangers. Children cannot comprehend or deal with the crap they read/see/hear on the Internet. In many, it can cause all kinds of agitation, addiction, bullying, psychoses, dysmorphia, depression, obsession, suicidality, etc.

Children do not need smart phones. If the parents want their children to have them, then the responsible thing is to lock them down with a very small whitelist of safe sites and apps, and call/text/media only to/from known contacts that the parent knows and approves. Same goes for tablets/laptops/desktops.

There is tons of good educational stuff available for devices without the risk of being brainwashed, picked on by other children, sucked into conspiracies, led down who-knows-what rabbit holes with hallucinating AI's, groomed by pedophiles, amplifying any stupid thing they might have ever written, lured into scams, thrust into adult concepts and conflicts, etc. It is hard being a minor, why would a parent want to make it 100 times worse? So it is convenient to shut them up? Because "all my friends do it"? Because it is cheap "entertainment"?

>"we've got a new social norm. It's illegal for tech companies to give unsupervised access to social media. Have you been paying attention at all?"

1) It shouldn't be up to the "social media" companies.
2) They have no way of determining if someone is a minor other than to strip ALL people of their privacy.
3) That isn't a "social norm", it is just a law. Big difference.
4) And the "social norm" should be no unrestricted access to the Internet at all, not just so-called "social media." There are MILLIONS of other sites children should not interact with.
5) There is no good definition of "social media", so they are just listing some of the popular ones.

This doesn't solve all the problems, and in the process, it makes new ones that are just as bad- penalizing adults is one of them.

>"So you're saying the restrictions need to be stronger to capture some of that other 99%? Or were you planning on banning phones and computers themselves?"

We are talking about minors. They shouldn't have unsupervised access to unrestricted devices connected to the Internet. I am not saying we ban anything for adults. But children should not have access to things that are dangerous. And that isn't up to companies or government, but to parents and their agents. We need to set a new social norm that it is not OK to just give unrestricted devices to minors. Just like it is not OK to give them unrestricted access to knives, medications, alcohol, strangers, vehicles, junk food, etc. That should NOT involve "ID"'ing everyone for every web site.

>"Is almost universally not about the children. In this case it's about de-anonymizing the Internet to aid in mass surveillance."

Bingo.

Because the kids will just get their fix on one of the 99.99999999999% of the sites that are NOT being blocked to them.

The problem is that kids SHOULD NOT HAVE UNSUPERVISED ACCESS to devices that can go just anywhere on the Internet in the first place. Or call/message/txt/media to/from any stranger. The devices are the problems. Parents should be parents and give their children restricted devices. Instead, we try to force every human (which means all adults and children) to PROVE who they are before they access popular sites. It is a big business/government wet dream come true.

>"If we are adding in FreeBSD, Android etc, might as well also add in MacOS. They are all quite similar from a user point of view and all based off one or the other NIXes"

Not really. It isn't free, much of it isn't open, doesn't use X11 or Wayland, doesn't use any of the Linux desktop environments, and it really only runs on Apple hardware. Very different in many ways from Linux or BSD.

Although I think that throwing "unknown" and "BSD" into the Linux count is not valid.