>"Where I live, most people just use the recycle bin and the trash can as the same thing. It is a two for one deal! woohoo!"

In some (many?) areas it all goes to the dump anyway (without any recycling).

Too bad that is not what the article is about. It is about contaminating the recycling. It is not about failing to recycle. The title is WRONG. Even the summary doesn't support the title.

>"Ohio City Using AI-Equipped Garbage Trucks To Scan Your Trash, Scold You For Not Recycling"

No, that is not what the article says and not what the summary says. There is ZERO in there about scolding people about NOT recycling. They are scolding people who put incorrect junk into their recycling bins. Big difference.

>"It's required for several major GUI apps, like Chromium."

But you should be using Firefox, not chromium ;) And Ubuntu containerizes Firefox as well. And LibreOffice, and GIMP, and all the important things.

Your point is correct and understood, however. Yes, Ubuntu is trying to force everyone to use containers, which is a horrible move to start with. And Snap containers, which makes the horrible move even more horrible.

That is one of several reasons droves of people have left Ubuntu for Mint. And Mint is ready to debase from Ubuntu if needed. And there is always Debian.

>"I switched back from Ubuntu to Debian when Snaps became an unavoidable thing. I only switched to Ubuntu for compatibility with more recent software, but nowadays I don't notice anything that's not available on Debian."

I would be much more inclined to use Debian than Ubuntu on a new server install. And more more inclined to use that or Mint for a desktop install. Even Mint is hedging their bets against Ubuntu with their alternative LDME distro in the wings.

Given a chance, Ubuntu will act just like RedHat. They have already shown a lot of hostility.

>"Every other distro action that I see further supports my growing opinion that Debian is the answer."

I concur. I wish we would pour the effort and funds into the Debian project directly and make its LTS version the new definition of "Enterprise Linux". If vendors back it, it can happen. I have had enough of corporate capture and monetization of what server Linux should be.

I am all for paid actual support- tech calls, installs, Email, chat groups, training, education certifications, equipment certifications, etc. But not for the actual Linux distro use. It flies in the face of the entire spirit of GNU/Linux. People are SICK TO DEATH of dealing with "entitlements" and 1,000 page licensing agreements and crap just to have access to a stable, business-friendly Linux distro.

>"Debian solves all the issues."

Not quite, the LTS is still not completely long enough for many platforms. But it is close. And without large hardware vendor-backing from HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc; and software or cloud vendors, it will be problematic. Swing enough of those and it is very possible the others will quickly follow.

>"Honestly though, at this point, it might be wiser for people to consider repackaging Ubuntu Pro packages (for server use) minus the branding"

No thanks. I see Ubuntu as better than RedHat, but just as irritating and hostile in many ways. It is why I use Mint for desktops (like an ever increasing number of Linux users) and not Ubuntu. But Mint really meant only for desktop, not server use...

I would love to see business resources funneled directly into Debian, so its stable release could become the new definition of "Enterprise Linux". Just need some even longer package update support and more vendor backing and it could happen.

>"That is nothing compared to the damage they did by making taking over CentOS with promises and then breaking those promises."

Completely agreed. And the moves/hostilities after that were almost as bad. It poisoned RedHat forever in many, many people's eyes.

>The fact Rocky Linux [rockylinux.org]

And Alma Linux, https://almalinux.org/ which came first

>"exists is good"

Indeed.

>"Nobody needs RedHat and nobody should be making new installs using it."

We should actually turn focus back to Debian and somehow pour resources into that, making it the new definition of "Enterprise Linux". Because we CERTAINLY don't want it to be Ubuntu at this point.

>"They save the company a ton of money - one touch screen can duplicate 10, 20 30 or more gauges."

None of that should be on a touchscreen. It should be on a dashboard screen in front of the driver. The touchscreen should be in the center.

>"But when the touch screen breaks, you lose everything rather than just the rpm."

Not when you also have a proper dashboard display (looking at your, Tesla- what a horrible idea). However, yes, if that dashboard display dies, you are kinda S out of luck! :) But, even non-digital dashboards in some later vehicles have a master controller with single-points of failure as well.

So does the 2025 Ariya I just bought. Although the HVAC controls are capacitive- they have fixed positions, molded icons, backlit with color change for function, and with haptic feedback (although that lags a bit). Same with the drive mode, camera selection, and several other things- none are exclusively on the touchscreen. Although you can get to most ON the touchscreen as well.

Seats, position memory, wheel position, mirrors, lights, turn, wipers, cruise, locks, windows, liftgate, moonroof, roof shade, garage door, courtesy lights, volume, parking brake, shifter, brake hold, auto-beams, hazards, and lots of other functions are dedicated controls.

And lots of physical buttons on the steering wheel with cues for feel so you can memorize them over time. And voice control as well. And a large dashboard display that is customizable (in addition to the large touchscreen on the center dash. Plus an HUD for important info. It is all laid-out and designed very well, and extremely attractive. But the infotainment system is a bit buggy here and there.

>"But one does not bite the hand that feeds"

We have zero evidence that Google has corrupted Mozilla. And, again, if there were even a hint of it, Google would be in huge hot water, very quickly.

>"I do. I choose to pay slightly more for wind power rather than the default gas turbine power."

That isn't real competition like I can buy a Honda or a Nissan or a Chevy kind of control, from different companies, with different features and prices and service. Or I can get Internet from my cable provider, or a fiber provider, or from a 5G provider, or from a satellite provider.

Of course, I am not proposing we have different competing grids/poles/connections to the home. I am just pointing out there are downsides to it- lack of competition, lack of accountability, lack of innovation, lack of motivation, slow response time, lack of pricing pressure, etc. All the things one expects with a government-overseen monopoly.

If AI datacenters are ruining the pricing (or stability) for everyone, then at a minimum, their increased cost to the system infrastructure should be reflected in THEIR rates, not everyone's.

>"They'll pass that cost on to OpenAI, Microsoft, Meta and other customers as they should. Those companies will pass the costs back on to the consumers."

It gets passed on to consumers who use THOSE products, yes. But not ALL consumers, like it does now when these AI companies effectively raise power pricing for everyone right now.

I know quite a few people who don't use anything Microsoft, Meta, or OpenAI. Now, some of the costs will still get passed through in a lesser way for consumers using different companies who, themselves, use AI stuff. But it won't be as much or as direct.

I don't think the government should "ration" AI. But I do think they have some duty to prevent it from destroying the grid and grossly affecting home power prices. I mean, that *is* the reason the power market isn't really a free market (from a consumer point of view) and is being overseen/regulated/controlled. They are apparently doing a crappy job (which shouldn't be surprising).

Comparing to what happened IE is entirely different. Completely closed, corrupted tons of standards, was not really multiplatform most of its life, bundled with their OS, rarely meaningfully updated, ignored standards bodies. So that isn't a good comparison to what is happening right now.

>"What should Chrome have done differently?"

Not be evil? Allow more participation in Chromium? Not tweak their sites to work "better" than other browsers? Only add "standards" that are actual multi-browser standards?

>"I don't get is how it's unique to Google's chrome project and not universal."

It isn't universal because Firefox, for example *is* community-driven, is *not* driven by some massive, world-dominating company, is *not* trying to subvert real standards (that I know of), is *not* in charge of major websites in which they intentionally code to have a worse experience on other browsers, does *not* have a conflict of interest when it comes to ads and privacy like Google does. So it is not universal.

>"Capitalism in practice. Socialize the costs, privatize the profits."

There is no free market in utilities, at least not from the consumer perspective. I have no choice where I get my power. There is one power company and the rates are set by government control/approval. So try again.

>"Actually the best response is to opt out of the system and install solar/battery if you can."

Unless you can't. And the more people opt out, the fewer are left to pay for the connected infrastructure. Then that becomes unaffordable for everyone else. Although the idea is attractive, and I would love being independent of the utilities.