They can't detain you merely for refusing a search, nor can they impound your property indefinitely.

If everybody was sacked for making a bad prediction, nobody would ever have a job.

You have pretty low standards if you think apple has a good gpu.

If you're a citizen or permanent resident, you can't be denied entry. Full stop. You can be detained for a short time, they can make you miss your flights, they can maybe impound your possessions, etc. But you can't be denied entry.

They've been increasing fuel efficiency and engine reliability a lot since they were first introduced in the early 80s, in addition to reducing emissions, because it turns out that computers are much better at timing than a serpentine belt. So yeah, I'd say it's a good idea. If you don't like them, I'm sure you can buy an old Pinto with a carburetor that doesn't rely on computers, and those are about as fuel efficient as you get from that era.

Otherwise, just how much smaller do you want them to be, exactly, and why? They're already pretty far out of view and out of sight given they're typically in the engine compartment.

I'm not sure I like the idea of Google, never mind Apple (or even worse, Samsung) skimming off the top of every single purchase I make. And in this case, even if they don't, even the cash purchases inevitably take a hit, effectively subsidizing these companies where they're not even involved.

We're literally adding yet another payment middle man in a place where we already have several. Anybody who has ever had a credit card merchant account will understand what I'm talking about.

The folks who run a typical website are not security focused. . . . AT ALL.

They could give two shits if your data gets stolen because the current fines / punishments for it are
effectively a slap on the wrist. Basically just the cost of doing business. Hell, they probably pay their
CEO more every year than the fine would be.

Now, turn these fines into something that will bankrupt the company for a major breach and perhaps
they'll start taking it seriously.

I would far prefer a dedicated button or knob for features now buried within sub-menus on a screen.
If my traction control button fails, then I'm only out that one function.

If the stupid screen fails, the vehicle is now basically undriveable since EVERYTHING goes through it. :|

What genius decided to put so many functions into a single point of failure device ?

Nor do you seem to have any understanding of what an SLA is, let alone the fact that, in GPs case, starlink is upholding theirs where charter is not, which is fairly typical of cable ISPs.

Hell, even on here.

The more controversial / hot-button a topic is, the more people it draws in to start internet arguments and coming up with ever
complex methods of calling everyone else stupid.

At the end of the day, no one has convinced anyone else that their side is right, the World keeps on spinning and the site makes
extra AD dollars for everyones trouble.

Social Media knows this all to well, thus do they love posting said garbage on their site. The idiots who take the bait and start
raging against everyone else ( who, in turn, is doing the same ) don't realize they're the engine upon which said site makes profit. :|

For starters, the following exerpt is straight from the US Copyright Office ( copyright.gov )

" Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances.
Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such
as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use. "

I would like to put additional emphasis on: " TEACHING and RESEARCH " specifically.

That said, unless we start hearing music clones that sound far too similar to existing works ( which people already do, they're called samples ) I don't see
where this lawsuit has any merit whatsoever outside of a copyright troll doing their thing trying to make a quick buck.

The problem is, they're not going after some nobody who downloaded a song off of whatever is the modern day version of Napster or Pirate Bay.
They decided they're going after the folks who have so much money at their disposal they can hire an entire ARMY of lawyers.

Not only that, but since these systems are operating with the blessing of the US Government. ( Can't let China win, National Security, etc, etc. )
So you're going up against an Alpha Gorilla here.

This should be amusing to watch the Music Industry get slapped around for a while.
It's fun to watch the bullies get their asses kicked from time to time. :D

In a related note, this really needed to happen anyway so the Courts can finally put the entire matter of what constitutes fair use to rest.

I'm surprised the Music Industry at large isn't telling this little guy to sit down and stfu.
They know all to well what will happen should the ruling go against them.

The concept of free speech (as in, a governing entity can't restrict it) hasn't existed since time immemorial, though it seems that money has. Also, by definition, corporation means multiple people acting as one person. Unless it's your argument that governments aren't people, unions aren't people, committees aren't people, etc. In which case, what are these without people?

Not exactly a false dichotomy, namely I'm speaking within a certain context of users already prone to getting emotional in any kind of discussion. It's hard to get any kind of middle with them. This is especially true of Russians in my experience -- they tend to either engage very emotionally, or they don't participate at all and, in their minds, this kind of thing is only for the tsar to deal with, none of their business, good tsar bad boyar, etc.

Anyway, what you're asking for wouldn't work here in the US -- any kind of moderation would run afoul of the first amendment. If you don't believe me, then look at how the courts have responded to cases of users being banned from military recruitment social media channels, even if they're just flooding the chat with useless gibberish.

Is it content they just don't like? Both here and on Reddit, especially when the audience is Russian, I'll make comments that likely piss off the reader, but they don't really have any argument against it, yet are compelled to reply anyways. Like for example, telling Russians that they blew up their own oil storage tank in Moscow. Pisses them off for sure.

But here's the kicker: What's worse, ragebait, or echo chamber where people only hear what they want to hear?

This is the exact criticism I levy against bluesky and others: By giving people only what they want to hear, you're effectively making them dumber, less informed, etc. I'd argue that what twitter is doing is only unhealthy if it convinces people that there are more extremists than there are normal people. But if it's a choice of either having one or the other, I'm tempted to argue that an engaged population is better than a dumb one, we just need to do more to keep people civil AND engaged.

Slashdot user activity isn't dependent upon trump news cycles, and while officially it's user submissions, it isn't really. Not only do editors ultimately decide what submissions get accepted, they put their own in. Msmash, for example, occasionally posts crap about tennis that nobody submitted or asked for.