From the video "having to use a sliding gesture makes the toggle slightly more difficult to use but greatly reduces the chances of inadvertently switching the toggle" As far as "not really showing a slider" You can't just touch them, you have to slide. When you runs her finger down a column, she is sliding her finger down the column. It is the sliding motion that triggers it. Not just contacting the on or off section. The sliding toggles require an explicit "click and drag" operation to toggle.

It does show continuous movement. She discusses sliding from one side to another, and that it makes it harder to accidentally switch the toggle.

The video clearly shows touch the on or the off section (predefined location)

The video clearly shows continuous sliding from one side to the other, with the demoer talking about sliding, gesture, and making it harder to accidentally toggle. While she doesn't use the words "continuous" surely that is what she means by "sliding"

Both the lever and the toggle appear to be graphical, UI objects that the user interacts with

Clearly something can be "toggled" when moving from one predefined location to another predefined location.
The only thing really missing is "unlocking the hand-held electronic device" But the demoer keeps talking about a general concept of "toggling" Surely it is obvious that if you can toggle, then you can toggle anything, including toggling from a locked to an unlocked state.
I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem to me that claim 1 is specific to a hand-held, OTHER than to unlock a hand-held device. But really the brunt of the claim is the touch sensitive display and sliding from one predefined area to another.

I'm curious why you think this isn't how prior art works?

Ignore for the moment that this video is almost 15 years old. And consider that many of the problem she brings up are prevalent in a lot of software today. Apple is still making some of the mistakes...

A lot of people think the the election was rigged. So I'm not so sure about this "right of self determination"

Huh? The user was driving the car forward, then he accidentally hit the gas, it kept going forward. So I'm not sure what your point is

He is correct, there is no free lunch. But I pay a LOT of money to download a bunch of stuff. I should get to choose where I download it from. If I want to use it all on netflix I should be able to, if I want to spread it around some for google, some for wiki, some for slashdot, I should be able to... But it sure ain't free.

Recruiters from other tech companies, or recruiters from headhunting agencies?

Not exactly. Either the company will pay the taxes, or they pay the employee more, claim that as a deduction, and the employee pays the taxes.
Yes the tax rate for the employee and the company will be different (which is why I said not exactly) and the company might find other loopholes to hide the money. But that is a separate issue.

So what you are saying is there isn't actually a missing plane, they just made it up?

Why not? Just because he licenses the things he invents? Or do you believe an inventor should also be the producer?

How were you originally sorting? Were you partitioning the receipts into separate piles, based on some date? And then taking each pile and sorting them? How is this NOT one of those fancy sorting algorithms you learned in comp sci? And how was a radix search faster?

And that is a good reason not to have millions of people driving cars. It will be easier and faster to work out most of the bugs in a computer driven car, than to get everyone to drive error free.

proving theories is left as an exercise for the reader

At the time of the closing, the value of the tape couldn't have been more than a few dollars.