Paramount wants not just the movie parts of Warner. They want the whole thing, including per TFS, the "cable TV assets." That includes CNN.

Paramount wants to acquire CNN and then change its reporting angle on the current administration.

That was more of a joke than a threat. Torvalds was expressing the potential of Linux, not an imperative. But in many ways his jocular goal has been fulfilled. Linux is everywhere, even if it's not on most users' desktops/laptops.

Earlier than that, and with a 4-digit UID, you ought to be old enough to remember 1995, which is when Torvalds quipped about world domination.

Yes.

Many people don't want to stop using hardware that still does what they need done. You seem to treat vendors who try to force upgrades after 7 years as though they're doing consumers a favor. They aren't. They're imposing obsolescence to benefit their own bottom line or that of their allies.

Considering current events, Linux may not have to challenge Windows, as Windows is challenging itself. The decision by MS to orphan perfectly good hardware that was running Windows 10 but cannot run Windows 11 has driven people to install alternate OSes like Linux.

I agree that alternate OSes should not try to out-Windows Windows. But at least they should offer a bridge to those who wish to change from Windows to another OS. Andy many open-source projects aim to do that, with: a similar look-and-feel (like Linux distros Zorin OS, AnduinOS, and Wubuntu); the ability to run Windows binaries (via Wine or commercially-supported versions); look-alike apps that can replace ones that Windows-users are familiar with (e.g., LibreOffice); and so on.

Which I haven't had to do for 3 decades. Strawman much?

My two cents: legacy support for printers has been better in Linux than in Windows. I have an old HP Deskjet 460 that no longer works in Windows (no driver) but works just fine in any Linux distribution I try it on.

As long as it can be disabled, I'm cautiously curious about technology like this. It could monitor food for spoilage, help with menus and dietary planning, recommend shopping lists, and so on. It could be very helpful if not abused.

On the other hand, I'm not so keen about home-technology that monitors what comes out of us at the other end. May that never catch on. Oh, wait.

"Sometimes co-operation is more important than talent."
"Oh, I bet it is."

- from the 1987 TV series Amerika.

Fair points, but one comment:

There are ways to monitor the health, age, and usage of a battery. Sort of like the odometer and other service monitors in a car. If swapping catches on, I would expect to see such battery monitors become ubiquitous, and attached right to the battery.

Okay, sorry. I didn't realize you're that close to the issue. And that it affects you in that way.

So, it sounds like you're saying the Feds want the provider's contact info, and the Feds collect the fee from them. The user is not involved, as I mistakenly thought. (It's the provider, not the user, who wants Safe Harbor here.)

That still doesn't sound like a restraint on free speech. Governments need contact info from people and organizations in order to function. And occasionally they charge fees for certain services. If the fees aren't excessive, I don't see a problem with them.

Now, if the government tries to influence what content can be removed and what cannot, then I do see a problem.

Or are you saying the MAGAnauts wanted to sue Twitter for kicking them off? Is that what 230 keeps them from doing? I thought it was protection from content that is posted, not protection from policing on their platform.

As I understand it, Twitter/X can do that even without 230.

I don't understand how that follows. A requirement that someone needs to be registered on a site for communication purposes does not sound like a suppression of free speech by the government. Nor does a fee, which if I understand correctly, is not "required" by the provider to charge, and is not collected by the government.

230 is about lawsuits, not fines.