>"The manufacturers want you to replace your phone every 2 years"

Perhaps, but they can do that with just junk updates.

>"so they will just use this to shrink the batteries."

Nope. That would reduce the operating time. Consumers won't go for that. Operating time is even more important than long-term battery life.

>"There are many scenarios where a life extending charge method could be really helpful"

And that holds true, even if it takes LONGER to charge (not saying it would). I have my Linux laptop and my Android phone both set to charge to 85% maximum to prolong life (unfortunately, no such setting for my smart watch). I also charge with a slower (lower amperage) charger on the phone, for the same reason. Also do that on my NiMH battery charger- lowest rate (even says in the manual that will prolong battery life). 99% of the time, I don't care how long it takes with these devices, because it is going on the charger at night and certainly will not take more than 8, 9, or whatever hours.

If I had an EV, I would want to charge it the same way at home, at a low rate and not to full. I would always have at least 10 hours, and usually much longer downtime.

>"What do you think people search for and use on health websites?

This isn't "health websites", it is only "hospital websites." Probably typical things: Address, visiting hours, mission, donations, events, employment, phone numbers and other contact info, directions, history, parking, staff, policies, newsletter, services, so many things.

>" Nothing sensitive? Ever?""

Pretty darn rare, probably. People are far, far more likely to use a general search engine for that (and for most people that is probably Google, the worst offender in tracking) and also sites like WebMD.

>"Hospitals -- despite being places where people implicitly expect to have their personal details kept private -- frequently use tracking technologies on their websites[...] and their findings were that 96 percent of their websites transmitted user data to third parties. "

So? That just means it is a typical a public website. I think you will find that almost all large websites have such tracking stuff on them. Marketing always wants to know as much as they can about who is visiting and why, and also link into social crap. Why would anyone think it would or should be less for "hospital" websites? This has nothing to do with protected or sensitive health information.

I hate all this tracking, and use active methods to block it, but I don't understand the thrust of this "study."

>"The centerpiece of our product offering is now the DuckDuckGo browser"

Right. Another Chrom*. No thanks. Also no support for Linux, so double no thanks.

>"Please note: Setting up and managing Personal Information Removal requires a Mac or Windows computer."

Again, no Linux support. So no thanks.

>"To subscribe to Privacy Pro and use our VPN, first download the DuckDuckGo Browser on mobile or desktop and subscribe to Privacy Pro in the browserâ(TM)s settings."

It is chrom* and also no Linux. So yet again, no thanks.

That said, I still use duckduckgo as my primary web search engine, with startpage as secondary.

>"People will die and it is because capitalism does not reward people who go above the call of duty to prevent loss of life."

What a ridiculous statement.

That has NOTHING to do with "capitalism"- do you think a communist-run airline would do better? Think again.

The reality is that you get the word out, and we are free to choose a different company. That airline will be punished by the market. That is over and above any other repercussions if something does actually go wrong.

>"I understand this post may put me on a list, but I do not know how else to raise this concern except by talking loudly to the internet in hopes someone hears."

You are doing exactly what an informed and concerned consumer SHOULD do. "Word-of-mouth" info is extremely powerful.

Here, the city buses do a real number on the pavement where they stop/sit/launch. I think there is concrete below the asphalt pavement at many of the stops, but the pavement above it will still develop deep ruts and waves.

>"Motorcycles are unfortunately NOT more efficient or less polluting than modern econoboxes on average"

That entirely depends on the motorcycle and car you are comparing. A small, modern motorcycle can get 70+ MPG and has all the same pollution controls as most modern cars. The AVERAGE of passenger vehicles on the road in the USA is 25.3 MPG. And I will count a dozen huge SUV's for each econobox car on the road. My motorcycle is a 2011, has only a single CAT, and has massively powerful 4cyl 16v 1.4L engine, but still gets 44MPG, which is twice the efficiency of my non-SUV 2009 car, and it emits half the CO2 and probably still pollutes less NO2/etc.

>"Automobiles, even the biggest and dumbest coal-rolling dudebro trucks with the shortest sidewalls, do basically zero damage to roads."

*ALL* vehicles damage the roads. It just varies by weight per tire. And huge battery-powered SUV's weigh a LOT. GMC Hummer EV weighs more than 9,000 pounds! The Rivian weighs 7,148. A Honda Civic sedan is about 2,800. Of course, it is true that commercial tractor/trailers blow all that away and cause, by-far, the most damage, but you also have to factor in the weight per square area of TIRE contact, then it doesn't seem quite as extreme.... at least until they hard brake :)

Well, I did say "maybe."
There is a bit of competition, but, admittedly, not much yet.

>" "This is a question of fundamental fairness," "It would be the equivalent of having a toll system on a highway and waving through certain users and not others."

"Fair" is in the eyes of the beholder.

We already do wave certain people through tolls. We often let motorcycles, HOV, E-vehicles, frequent users, local users, elderly, or disabled pay less or nothing for tolls. And you can argue HOV fosters less road usage, and motorcycles can't really be HOV and are also so light they put almost no wear on roads and take up less space and are extremely efficient and less polluting. More axles pay more, huge trucks pay a ton more. Many would argue that is more fair. Some might argue parts are and parts aren't. As for income-based or age-based tiers, many would argue that is far from "fair" (nothing is as "fun" as punishing people who spent their lives being responsible, making good choices, and working harder, right?)

Presumably, the tax breaks on commercial spacecraft launches was done to foster innovation and development. Now that we have maybe met such objectives, if they are profitable, maybe we should charge them at least the same as airlines.

>"Diminishing returns with video. Comes a point when my eyes cannot discern any added benefit. That signals the wallet to stay closed."

^ This

Many people THINK they need more than 1080P, but 99% of them don't and wouldn't know/see the difference between that and 1080P upscaled to 4K. There were HUGE jumps in quality between VHS 480 to DVD 480P and then 720P. From 720P to 1080P was big but nowhere near previous jumps. From 1080P to 4K is mostly a yawn, unless you are viewing on a 200" display at 10 feet. HDR is nice, but not exactly a game changer for most people.

Human eyes have limits. My main problem is the diminishing quality of the content (plot/story/acting/etc) not the quality of the video spec.

>"I rip every single DVD I buy (I avoid Bluray like the plague it is)"

DVD is horrible resolution for modern screen sizes. And 4K is overkill for the vast majority of people and circumstances. 1080P Bluray is ideal. Why would you avoid it?

>"In September, Netflix ended its movie-by-mail service."

And I still have money sitting here, waiting to spend on some replacement Blu-ray-by-mail rental service. I had been a Netflix disc customer for many, many years and found the model to be convenient and reasonable.

https://www.dvdinbox.com/ seems it might be an option? Looks like they have no series, though. The other few options either have barely any discs or mostly not Blu-Ray.

I also buy Bluray when something is truly excellent and price is reasonable. But that doesn't happen all that often (most because there isn't much truly excellent, and price still matters).

Alternatively, if they would release most Blurays at $10-$13 or something, I would ditch wanting renting and just outright buy most of them. Don't care about 4K, and not going to pay $15/$20/$30+ for a movie, especially one I don't think will be great. But I am happy/willing to wait several months after theatrical release.

>"His "no contest" plea is likely to make that very difficult to obtain."

Yeah, perhaps bad lawyering?

The burden of proof should have been on the government to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was NOT who he claimed he was, not just throw him in a psyc ward (I think we might be missing some context and other info in the article/summary). That would have been a pretty high bar to pass, had he not plead guilty (no contest is essentially the same thing). Of course, he didn't make things easier by being irresponsible/vagrant. If this happened to me (or most people), I could produce COPIOUS amounts of documentation and witnesses.

I don't ask why people was "want" this. I ask why would anyone TOLERATE this kind of crap? Consumers just need to learn the word "no." When suddenly nobody buys such crap, the message will be very crystal clear. It is the same with streaming services or game consoles, or whatever. If they force content on you that don't want and can't disable- complain loudly to them. If/when possible, cancel your service and make sure to tell them why. Consumers have a lot more power than they think.

And my recommendation for "TVs" is the same it has been for eons. USE IT AS A DISPLAY MONITOR ONLY. Do not connect it to the Internet, ever (maybe for a firmware update). If it doesn't work that way, return it. A large/quality TV is expensive and should last for years. Connect external content devices to it as you please. If one misbehaves or goes rogue or stops being supported, then replace that one little box. Or create your own box.