They don't provide cloud *storage* but they do heavily push you towards cloud connectivity.

The mobile app did not support direct connections at all until recently.
Although now it does, it explicitly ignores SSL certs when connecting directly resulting in MITM risk.
Although the controller is reachable via HTTPS, it does not let you view video from a mobile device and forces you to use the app, this appears to be an arbitrary limitation as you can access it just fine from an ipad which is basically a large iphone.
Support for IPv6 is very poor (many users have CGNAT for legacy traffic so IPv6 is the only way to reach devices).
They broke IPv6 completely for a while - the HTTPS service did not listen on the v6 address even when the device did and could be accessed via SSH.
There is no support for custom SSL certs unless you use third party scripts, and the updates keep breaking those scripts.
There is no support for dynamic dns without third party scripts.

Until recently the only way to access the cameras from mobile was through the cloud service, you could access the device over https directly but then it wouldnt let you view video if you were doing so on a mobile device.

The mobile app still defaults to forwarding everything through the cloud, and although there is now an option to connect directly in the most recent versions it does so by ignoring the SSL certificate making you susceptible to MITM attacks.

Their IPv6 support is also very poor, and there are a lot of networks using CGNAT for legacy service so inbound legacy traffic is not possible. There is no option to configure IPv6 through the web interface, no mention of it at all, although the device will acquire an address via SLAAC and DHCPv6.

The controllers themselves don't provide an easy way to load a proper SSL certificate, although it can be achieved with third party scripts.

There's also no built in dynamic dns support which is needed if the ISP keeps changing your prefix.

What I need is something that supports SSL over IPv6, and lets me use a valid cert preferably providing an easy way to request one from letsencrypt or other such services. The unifi stuff can be forced to work with third party scripts, but they still try to push you towards their cloud service and you still have the security risk due to the lack of ssl cert checking in the mobile app.

The chance of someone capable of learning critical skills being born in switzerland is the same as anywhere else, if the swiss are not training their own citizens to perform these critical roles then that's already a failure on their part.

The unifi stuff leans heavily towards cloud, you can force it to do direct connections but its not the default and there are some limitations, and direct access for the mobile app is a relatively new feature.

A (proper) truck GPS will avoid roads that would be unsuitable for trucks, but would be fine for a regular car. This could inconvenience you at times.

No, it is "end to end" encryption exactly as they claimed - one of those ends is their datacenter where the data is processed.

As per the description from the linked blog:

The "chosen recipient" is Kohler's datacenter, so it's behaving exactly as claimed. The application functions by processing the data on their servers, which is also why a monthly fee is charged to provide the service.

You could theoretically avoid this by transmitting the data directly between the camera and your device, and doing the processing on your device, although that might not be practical

There are many much worse examples where data is routed through hosted servers unnecessarily, typically as a kludge to get around NAT restrictions.

It's "licensed" when it suits them, and "sold" when it suits them.. Customer always gets screwed.

Any communication technology can be tracked - cell towers can pinpoint your location, hard lines obviously are laid to a specific address so the idea that your location can be tracked when your using a particular service is nothing new, and many governments already require the ability to locate an individual subscriber when presented by an appropriate warrant or court order.
A service which cannot pinpoint users would be illegal in many countries and would not gain regulatory approval.

A healthy body will regulate blood sugar, and when someone suffers from diabetes their ability to regulate blood sugar is compromised. This can result in either dangerously high or dangerously low blood sugar levels.
Doctors would recommend patients drinking a sugary energy drink if their blood sugar dips to dangerous levels, but this becomes difficult when a lot of places don't even sell full sugar drinks any more.

Someone with diabetes needs to control their sugar intake, not replace sugar entirely. This becomes a lot harder when products that previously contained a lot of sugar now contain something else without obvious differentiation on the packaging.

Some artificial sweeteners were found to pose higher risks for diabetes than sugar, for instance: https://www.oncologyrepublic.c...
and yet people are pushed towards the sweeteners as if they're a magic solution etc.

In many countries it's becoming increasingly difficult to avoid artificial sweeteners. There are many restaurants now where the only soft drinks available contain sweeteners, your only options are alcohol or water.
For years we were offered a choice, but now the full sugar choice is being increasingly taken away from people.

You are REQUIRED to eat something, you might only be able to afford the cheap low quality options. Not eating at all will result in a slow painful death.

You do not need to smoke, the cheapest option is not to smoke at all, anyone can afford to not smoke.

And they nodoubt run promotions encouraging you to buy more of this healthy food, buy one get one free offers, discounts for large quantities etc.
Even the healthiest of foods are unhealthy when consumed excessively.
What does this grocery store do to promote moderate consumption?

Depends on the individual UPF...
There have been various drives in the past to reduce fat and salt, and in some cases these things were replaced with unhealthy quantities of sugar, or corn syrup etc.
If you push them to remove/reduce sugar, it will be almost always be replaced with something even worse.

The harmful effects of cigarettes are well known. Those of us who don't want to suffer those effects simply don't smoke and we avoid *most* of those effects (aside when someone else is smoking nearby).
It's extremely easy to not smoke, there is no downside, we save money and experience better health.

For food it's much more difficult:

1) we need to consume food, we can't simply avoid it
2) smoking=bad is simple and easy to avoid, but the huge number of ingredients and processing methods are extremely difficult to comprehend and fully understand
3) food products are often changing their recipes, forcing you to constantly recheck the ingredients list
4) the full ingredient list is sometimes not available, ingredients are masked by generic terms like "natural flavorings" or sometimes not easily available at all.
5) while smoking is harmful to anyone, some foods are only harmful to a subset of individuals - eg nuts can be poisonous to those with a nut allergy but harmless to others.
6) often there are very limited options available, many restaurants only offer soft drinks and/or alcohol which makes life difficult for someone who doesn't or can't consume either of these etc.

The replacement artificial sweeteners used in the "low sugar" soft drinks are even worse, and couple that with the marketing which basically says "this doesnt contain any sugar so you can consume as much as you want" and you have a disaster in the making.

Sugar is not harmful in sensible quantities, i would rather drink a small quantity of full sugar coca-cola than any quantity of coke zero.

Healthy food and market capitalism are inherently incompatible...

The solution is moderate consumption of natural traditional foods, things that our bodies have evolved over thousands of years to consume. But moderate consumption is unprofitable, the market system forces companies to:

1) encourage excessive consumption, more consumption = more profit
2) look for ways to cheapen the product to either improve margins, or compete against others

The end result is always going to be junk packed full of the cheapest possible ingredients that are not illegal or outright poisonous.

Government regulation could solve this if done properly, but usually makes things worse because current regulation focuses on saying "X is bad, reduce X", which means X gets replaced with Y where Y is something new that hasn't been studied enough to make it onto the bad list yet.

There are also things like coloring that exist solely for marketing to make the product look more appealing, but serve no nutritional purpose and could be harmful. The use of artificial coloring should really be eliminated entirely.