Disclaimer: I'm not a Windows 11 fan.

That being said, isn't it not the case that when you install and run Chrome (and Firefox, IIRC) that you are given an option to make it your default browser, right from within the app? It's clear as day. I will grant that, if you choose to go into the system settings directly and try to adjust default applications it is confusing for the laypeople. But if you don't know how to click "Yes" when asked by Chrome to make *it* your default browser, when you want it to be the default, I can't imagine you caring what your default browser actually is. Is there something I'm missing? I haven't installed the latest build, FWIW.

Commenting to undo moderation... (F'in mouse)....

You forgot "in Containers."

I wish I had mod points to use.

I'd love for a lot of my electronics to be working 14 years after I purchased them. I don't believe I'm typing this, but Amazon should be commended for supporting these devices as long as they have instead of forcing us to by new devices every few years like some fruity companies out there.

I had (and probably still have somewhere) an older eInk Kindle. I loved that it had a 'beta browser' back then that let me get on the internet anywhere there was 3G. This was long before cell phones / plans had unlimited data plans and WiFi wasn't as ubiquitous. The browser mostly worked on all the sites I went to then (except for Flash, but then again, it was Flash).

II always knew this day would happen, but I seriously thought it would have happened long before this.

While I don't agree with you that we don't need people to agree on the problem, I sure wish that you are right and I'm wrong.

There. You don't see that often on Slashdot.

We clearly live in two different worlds.

I realize this might well have been a flippant comment to the article. But, there are quite a few people (some of which I know very, very well) which will truly and completely agree with the sentiment of your comment. I'll put it like this.

I know a large amount of people who refuse to believe that any kind of climate change is real, let alone whether or not it is something that can be addressed. They'll argue terminology (climate vs weather), localization (it feels good where I'm at now! I don't have to run the heat as much this winter!), and even theology (Either God will provide or they'll rapture.. Seriously..). My response is usually something like, "I'm concerned over the consistently rising average temperatures its likely effect on the weather, and it sure seems like a lot of people are impacted by it. I think we need to be serious about trying to correct it. But, I could be wrong, I suppose. If, over the next five years, the average global temperatures drop, I'm willing to seriously reconsider my position. How should average global temperatures behave for you to seriously reconsider *your* position?" If they answered me instead of walking away (looking at you, Bill), it was something like, "It doesn't matter what happens with global temperatures to them." I then chime in something like, "Well, it seems to me you're saying that average global temperatures have no impact on your opinion of whether or not we should actually try to correct them. So, if it isn't temperatures, what it is?" That's when the conversation ends.

If most people can't even agree that overall rising temperatures is an issue that needs to be corrected in a scientific way, there really isn't much hope for us in the long run.

I was listening to a news article a few years back about companies wanting to set up some sort of shop in Guam (and other similar places). By doing the bare minimum work to call your product assembled in the US, have it done at a place that technically is the US, and still paying cheaper wages for labor, companies have been saving more money for American products.

Some people just want the "Made in the USA" sticker to either feel better about themselves and/or superior to others than actually be willing to pay more to support on-shore manufacturing.

I don't anticipate seeing a lot of crapware on my families iDevices. I'm sure that if DMA is passed that Apple will make it extremely difficult and/or scary for the average user to sideload apps. In all likelyhood, the average user will ask their Apple-familiar friends and 'techies' to sideload an app.. That is, if they can even come up with a reason to want an app that's not in the App Store.

I think you're right when it comes to people who live and/or work in Manhattan. And, more importantly, people who can afford to live and/or work in Manhattan. But remember there are tens of millions of tourists to New York City every year (or at least, before the Pandemic). The bulk of them go into Manhattan. I can easily imagine those people who already have some Google / Android consumer exposure paying a visit to the "Flagship Google Store nearby" when they stop to see the NYC Apple store.

I don't really think they'll sell enough to pay for the rent, but they'll be buying exposure and presence. Doesn't matter to me, but it sure doesn't hurt the brand.

Yeah.. God Bless America...

:(

My issue is that I really don't see very much difference between your average anti-vaxxer saying, "I don't want to do 'X', and therefore, I'm justified not having to do 'X'." and someone claiming religious persecution and saying "I don't want to do 'X', and my personal interpretation of my religion says that 'X' is immoral / sinful / etc., therefore I am justified not having to do X." As I tried to convey in my original post in this thread, the religion card is just another way of saying "I don't want to do behavior X, and I am willing to do SLIGHTLY more work to get out of it".. I mean, if one's interpretation of some religious text can't hold up against a general consensus of one's own peers, maybe that interpretation is wrong to begin with? Dunno, but you'd think religion, which claims absolute truth, would have a more universal agreement on seemingly important topics like public health. Perhaps there's something I'm not understanding?

Thinking out loud, though, I wonder if it turns out that one's convictions of faith don't hold up to scrutiny by others of the same faith, how much of those convictions are really faith-based to begin with?

I agree this is legally the case in the US. I'd add that Jehovah's Witnesses also feel the same way about blood products.

Personally, I would argue that they would need to show Biblical documentation, or bona fide extra-Biblical references, to demonstrate that is, in fact, what their prophet / God says they should do. An independent Ecumenical panel of religious reviewers might look at their claims of ingesting blood as legitimately being counter to Christianity. They might also find that there is a world of difference between condemning blood-consuming first century Pagan rituals and allowing a life-saving blood product-derived medication. In the case of Christian Scientists, have them show where Jesus (or perhaps Paul?) said not to ever seek or accept medical help. If they can show it, great. If not, well, it is not really a religious issue then. If you're claiming religious exemptions to something, shouldn't you have to document where, in fact, it's against your religion?

Don't worry -This won't ever happen in the US until I'm elected dictator. And I think that's a long ways off.

Oh, please...I have never claimed to be a theologian. And I'll state emphatically I'm not, although I have read parts of the Bible (new testament, mostly).

So Catholics take issue with stem cells.... Since stem cells aren't mentioned in the Bible, I'm going to assume that the authority that stem cells are against their religion is because of a Vatican statement. After all,, if you're a practicing Catholic, the Pope (and by proxy, the Vatican) is your source of authority besides scripture. I would then point out that the Vatican has said that COVID vaccines are, to quote, "it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process." https://www.vatican.va/roman_c... Put another way:
1) "I can't take the vaccine because of Stem Cells, and Stem Cells are immoral because the (Pope/Church) says so." - The church says COVID vaccines aren't immoral and should be taken if at all available. If given a choice, give a vaccine not derived from aborted stem cells. So, go get a shot.

2) "I can't take the vaccine because of Stem Cells, and, even though the Stem Cells are OK'd by the Church, it's still wrong." - You're not following your religion here. You may have a personal ethical claim against taking a vaccine, but, it is not a medical or a religious one. On top of that, you are using your religion as an excuse for your behavior. If I *were* a theologian, I'd take a great offense to that.

I never mentioned State religions. What I am actually suggesting that whomever is claiming religious objections to (fill in the blank) needs to show the documentation in their holy texts, official leaders, etc., that such objections actually do in fact exist. I can't go and claim I can't wear shoes at work because Jesus said that I should shake the dust off my feet and I work with heathens all day long and that shoes prevent my feet from collecting dust. I can't throw pebbles at my cubemate because he/she's an adulterer and the Bible says I should stone adulterers. That's absurd and doesn't make any sense. I also can't imagine any court upholding those examples as legitimate expressions of religion at work. Perhaps I'm wrong, though.

It's more of a "I think we need a ruling on this." is what I'm looking for. And I would think a non-governmental panel of assorted religious figures that could review claims would be worth trying.