It absolutely adds cost and complexity to the design of a modern day automobile. Effective AM antennas are not exactly small and you have to incorporate one into the design of your vehicle in a way that minimizes interference (much harder with EVs) without ruining the aesthetics of the vehicle. If that was as easy and cost free as you think there'd be no incentive to remove it in the first place, your tinfoil hattery notwithstanding.

Now, the additional cost isn't really all that significant in the grand scheme of a five digit automobile, but the margins on non-luxury automobiles aren't huge, and if you're thinking like an MBA asshat and multiply the individually insignificant cost savings by the millions of automobiles you hope to sell....

I can see the argument for the mandate, even as someone who virtually never uses AM radio, but don't pretend the mandate will be cost free.

Found the winner of the thread. :-)

My added emphasis to your text. You're arguing for basically what happened, at least with Windows. Windows 7 introduced the search concept but kept the old Start Menu structure. Windows 10 obfuscated it a bit more but it was still there. It's only in Windows 11 that it really went away and went away is relative because it's STILL THERE, if you care to dig deep enough to find it, but in the day to day why would you have to?

I call it "muscle memory" and it's not like you can't still take advantage of it. Programs I use in the day to day are pinned to the task bar / dock regardless of the OS I'm working with. I'm not using Spotlight to launch Chrome or Excel. If it's not something I use in the day to day, muscle memory isn't going to be terribly useful for finding it, and that's what search is helpful for. Neither OS requires you to remember the full name of whatever program you're looking for. The first letter will get you there more often than not. Our access control system is managed by this crappy user space application whose name I can't be bothered to remember, I only use it once a month or so, but I know it starts with an 'E' and that's enough to find it with search.

Look, this is very much an IT Guy complaint in my experience. Over the years, I've transitioned thousands of end users to newer versions of Windows and macOS where search displaced the traditional means of navigation. Nearly all rapidly adapted and were happy with the outcome. The few outliers weren't exactly slaying productivity on the older OS versions. The people I've heard the strongest bitching about it from are all IT peers/colleagues.

I lived in the Southern USA for 5 years as an adult and 3 as a teenager. It's depressing how much MODERN DAY politics in this South still relies on these tactics. We'll convince poor whites to vote against their own economic self-interest by turning them against the n***ers. Yeah, you're living in a trailer park, and your oldest kid just died from an opioid overdose, but at least you're not black.

Every modern OS will index the CONTENT of documents along with the FILENAME. No modern OS makes it impossible or even particularly hard to browse the file system, through GUI or CLI, if you find doing so easier to wrap your head around than using search.

Next easily dismissed complaint?

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how a program can be critical to your daily workflow but not worthy remembering the name of.

You're not the first person I've heard with this complaint on /., which I find richly ironic, given the large number of people here who are comfortable with both Linux and its various shells. Tell me, if you're working from a terminal, how effective can you be without knowing the name of the program you need to execute? Oh gosh, what was that text editor called? Something with an 'e', if only I had a menu to help me get there....

You don't need a 1590 on the SAT if your parents went to the school and continued writing checks after they graduated. :-)

You should look up the phrase "legacy admission" before you casually dismiss my point by taking a cheap shot at reading comprehension.

I'll concede you said nothing to confirm that you were yourself such an admission, however, flaunting your privilege of having enough money to pay for an Ivy League education out of pocket certainly confirms that you entered life more economically advantaged than most. I suppose you could have been both born rich and smart, however, it seems far more likely that you're a nepo baby that had everything -- including Ivy League admission -- handed to him on a silver platter.

I doubt you're stupid. I just don't think you're as smart as you think you are. If you were, you'd have a bit more self-awareness.

Have a good day, Anonymous Coward. :-)

Meta can give up the metadata (pun intended) of who you're speaking with, which is often enough for legal/govt purposes, but they cannot give up the content of the messages.

The biggest problem with WhatsApp -- if you aren't a tinfoil hat wearing paranoid -- isn't Big Brother. It's Big Data. WhatsApp will happily ingest your contact list, photos, location, and all manner of other sensitive information, after which Meta will happily use said data to sell you ads. Nothing stops Signal from doing the same, or Apple for that matter with iMessage, but neither of those two outfits are ADVERTISING companies. Meta absolutely is and its CEO is on record laughing at you for giving him all of your information.

Regarding Big Brother, end to end encryption is a false sense of security if you're worried about him. Go read the 1/6 indictments and court transcripts and see how many allegedly secure Signal chats got entered into evidence. If you're using an E2EE platform to plan a criminal conspiracy, I hope you realize it's only as secure as the weakest person in the group, the one who will happily rat out the rest of you in hopes of a better deal. If you're using it for something more mundane, like cheating on your spouse, well, the civil system has a much lower standard of evidence than the criminal and it's going to reflect really badly on you if you don't surrender the messages during discovery.

You know the idea behind every version of Windows since 7, every version of MacOS since Spotlight was introduced (circa 2005) and every halfway decent Linux distribution is that you SEARCH for things rather than navigate menus, right? Click the start menu and start typing what you want. The vast majority of the time Windows will get you there before you've finished typing the entire word.

Out of all the complaints -- many legitimate -- about changes to Windows over the years, this is by far the lamest. It's like beaming up to the Starship Enterprise and bitching that SOP is to tell the computer to navigate to Earth at Warp 6 rather than entering the precise coordinates into a keypad, followed by the precise fuel intermix ratio to achieve the desired speed, blah, blah, blah, all because you're unwilling to take the few days required to retrain your muscle memory to do things differently.

No it's not. And you know it's not, because you correctly identity the broken asylum system as the problem, and those people aren't sneaking across an undefended border. They're SEEKING OUT Border Patrol officers so they can make their asylum claim.

The law entitles you to a HEARING the moment you ask for asylum. Until that hearing occurs you are legally entitled to remain in the country. Why aren't you mad at the politicians that starved the system of resources instead of the desperate migrants who are simply exploiting the world's most obvious loophole? It shouldn't take YEARS for an asylum claim to be adjudicated, but it does, and that's a problem we could fix if one of the two major political parties cared as much about the issue as they claim.

This problem could be solved by the simple expedient of hiring more immigration and administrative law judges. One of the aforementioned two parties won't go for it. Old school members of the party in question are reflexively hostile to any perceived expansion of government and secretly like illegal immigration because it exerts downward pressure on wages. Newer more populist members of the party are part of a Cult of Personality that has cynically decided it's more politically advantageous to have a broken system to rail against than it is to actually fix said system.

If you lived in the USA, you would know this isnt true.

I live in the US and the southern border is indeed WIDE OPEN.

Invasion is an accurate term.

Seems an odd position for you to take, to slap down those that are already beaten and bloody on the floor. But hey, you do you there anonymous coward that isnt even from the USA.

I wasn't the OP, but I guaran-fucking-tee you I'm a US citizen. And the majority of those crossing the border are not legitimate asylum seekers...they are ONLY coming here to earn money.

Being poor in a foreign country does not qualify you for asylum under those laws. Most of the border crossers are younger military age males.

If they truly were seeking asylum from political or other persecution, they'd not be crossing over multiple countries ...they'd apply in the first country they come to, but no, they keep going multiple borders to get to the US borders.

Why? To make money...

We're not under obligation to take in economic nomads....and most of the people coming across...if we can catch them, do NOT qualify for asylum and will get deported, but our US system of letting them in and "trusting" them to come back in a year or two for a hearing...isn't really working out that well.

JFC....even the northern cities are starting to get tired of this shit because now, they are finally getting a taste of what the southern states have been going through by being overrun by these illegal aliens.

Sentiment is turning....finally.

Non-sequitor

No, Non-seatbeltitor!

Reinforcing the aristocratic nepotism of the Ivy Leagues is not how you go about getting people to feel sympathy for them or their alumni.

It's all a matter of perspective. A lot of people are working just to get by in the world. If they're just giving everyone 10 more years, I'm probably in. If I have to trade 10 more years of work, to pay for 10 more year of life, it's not as enticing. I'm not outright declining, but it very much becomes a cost/benefit question for a large portion of society.

Given the 10yr extra option...I'd take the years!!