Music charts died with Casey Kasem.

This isn't saying much. GDPR has improved neither privacy nor security. EU regulation has the same effectiveness of CA cancer warnings.

It is none of Google's business what software any of us run on our own computers.

Wait, what do you mean that's wrong?

Because Tesla only makes a few models, and I think only the Y and 3 are available in China. With Chinese batteries, BTW.

Also because they are aspirational. A lot of Audis are crap, they charge a subscription for heated seats. Range Rovers are unreliable and uninsurable, but people think they compensate for their micro penis.

You are getting shafted by the lack of competition from Chinese manufactures. Here we can buy a brand new long range EV for around $30k before tax, and it's better than a Tesla.

You greatly underestimate the EU. I know it's hard to imagine politicians that aren't working for corporations first, but the way the EU is set up it's very difficult for them to gain traction. Look at all the pissing and moaning about GDPR, RoHS and so forth. The EU made it happen anyway.

So at least for Europeans that option to side-load any app we want isn't going away. What's more, Google is now required to allow third party app stores on Google Play, and I think it's only a matter of time until those stores are allowed to certify apps themselves.

And now they are publicly boasting about it expecting to be rewarded for their efforts.

The thing is, Google is winning. Almost every browser is just a Chrome skin now. Firefox continues its slow spiral into irrelevance.

Funnily enough Firefox recently did the same thing. Integrated AI into the browser, and used AI to find bugs in the code. Shame they couldn't use AI to refactor the code into something that might actually gain some traction. There's a reason why every other browser is a Chrome skin.

Sorry you feel that way, but it's a reasonable take on reality. There are two types of situations: Situations where you want to learn about X and situations where you need to know the answer to some very specific, but narrow question about X. For the second question, giant, ad-laden websites where the answer is buried in a pile of unrelated information are basically a disservice. You're paying for the information not just by watching their ads, but by wading through all the other crap.

In an ideal universe, there would be some sort of micropayment system, where websites earned money just from people visiting, and it came out of a fund paid into by ISPs, and the amount paid would be proportional to how many sites the Internet users of the world hit that day, and it would have some way of avoiding payment to link farms and other similar garbage content. And this would be an international system, and it would be designed in a way that somehow perfectly preserved privacy while maintaining auditability. I have no idea what that would look like, of course.

In the absence of such a scheme, though, there will always be a tug of war for power between content creators and browser/search companies, because the latter are trying to do what is best for the user in the short term, and the former are trying to get paid to protect what is best for the user in the long term. And I'm really not sure how to solve that problematic power dynamic, except by suggesting that perhaps that tug of war might actually be the solution, because it means neither side has too much power and control.

Apparently not, or at least the web version refused when I asked.

If they did act on it, it would be a legal problem as soon as someone on the autism spectrum or otherwise non-neurotypical comes along. In fact I've been accused of being AI more than once, due to certain phrases that apparently AI is fond of. But that's just a mistake, once it happens to someone with a recognized medical condition it becomes discrimination.

It's Netflix. They would have been watching it on a TV.

I've work in technical industries, and they can't handle encryption. You try to send someone an encrypted file with clear instructions to decrypt it, and they will fail and demand you send it over unencrypted instead. I can only imagine that it's even worse in creative industries.

Companies instead rely on contracts obliging the receiver to protect their property. When they don't, a lawsuit like this is the result. And it may even work out better for them, because a movie that might have been a flop instead nets them whatever they can convince a court to award.

Not in Europe. It's a bit complicated because there may be things like news articles that are public, but generally speaking there isn't some website or database where anyone can go look up what criminal convictions someone else has.

There is also a time limit on many of them, after which they don't have to be reported to your employer or insurance company, for example.