^^^ This, 100%
I have an HP AIO laser printer/scanner.
I bought it in 2018.
I have replaced one toner cartridge since then, and IIRC, it was an aftermarket one that cost like $30 and is supposedly good for 3000 pages. I print maybe 20 pages a year, so I figure I'm good until I die.

It's a HIPPA thing. (Sorry, this is a 100% USian-centric comment).
Faxes are specifically called out an an acceptable and authorized medium for sending health records via an electronic means, so it's been easier to just keep a fax around versus spending the $ to upgrade to a HIPPA-compliant EHR system.

Well done, Commander Poole.

In short, you use the same reasonably complex 8-12 character "base password" for everything, and then use the first 3-4 letters of the site in question, along with the last 3-4 letters of the site in question as a prefix and suffix.

If you want to get fancy with it, the length of the url/site-name can inform the number of prefix/suffix characters to use to increase entropy, so maybe 3 prefix/suffix characters for sites with odd numbers of characters and 4 for even.
It's not perfectly secure, but it assures that there will be virtually no password duplication across sites, and is easy to remember/calculate but hard to guess.

But then the question is what possible reason would they have to provide the app/service for free, without ever hoping to monetize it?

Unless we're willing to pay directly for these things (hint: we're not), these companies (that are, you know, largely in existence to make a buck/Euro/Yen/etc..), the only way they can accomplish that is to sell the one thing we're willingly giving them in return, data about ourselves and, in some cases, the small hope that we buy something from them that they can profit from.

I'm not some dewey-eyed ingenue that thinks we're living in a world where everything should be free, and I think it's unrealistic to expect that.

Not sure where youâ(TM)re posting from, but to my knowledge, most legal systems frown on ex post facto laws.

Confused. How can you charge them for something that they cannot be prosecuted for?

Only if they took some concrete and coordinated action to further the plan to disable the safety systems. Even if they KNEW or suspected he'd do this, NOT doing something cannot constitute a conspiracy.

Negligence, even in a strict liability sense, cannot sustain a conspiracy charge.

The Kansas statute spells it out quite clearly:

21-3302.âfConspiracy. (a) A conspiracy is an agreement with another person to commit a crime or to assist in committing a crime. No person may be convicted of a conspiracy
unless an overt act in furtherance of such conspiracy is alleged and proved to have been committed by such person or by a co-conspirator.

Plus, there is a minute chance that Liv Tyler shows up.

Cliipy agrees wholeheartedly.