EV batteries can be made that way

They are. EV batteries are almost always assemblies of pretty standard cells, just like any other modern battery. The Tesla Model S and X use 18650s. That's the AA of the lithium ion world and is the same thing that's in those oh-so-proprietary power tool batteries, some laptops, battery banks, etc.

There's a burgeoning market of battery refurbishers who crack open old batteries and replace bad cells. Or you can just order a third party replacement, just like you can buy aftermarket brakes, tires, windshield wipers, whatever.

The game GPL is playing

There, you nailed it. And that game convinces people, the OP in particular, that something with fewer restrictions is "not free." Not "not as good" but specifically "not free."

This is precisely the same game that let Engels and Lenin convince everyone that a social system based on general anarchy plus a wee bit of democracy where absolutely required that was supposed to come about naturally ACTUALLY required authoritarianism and violent revolution because.

The OP claimed that the BSD license is "not free" and the GPL is.

Having freedom does not mean you can do anything you want.

Yes, it does. It's clearly impossible for everyone to be that free, so reality forces compromises, not redefinition. Not permitting something is not "more free."

You can explain a lot of things, in isolation, with classical physics. That doesn't mean that's how it works. The GP's comment is insightful: WTF is a "quantum material" if it's not literally everything?

What does the free project care about "the market?" What you mean is that the commercial project isn't forced to contribute back to the free one. I also don't like that idea, but claiming that forcing someone to do something they don't want to is "more free" is weird.

It has always seemed a particularly strange argument that a restriction makes something more free. More ethical, maybe. A reasonable limitation in order to maintain some other goal, okay. It's not free if you can do this, no.

Right. The statement "Keeping DST means that the sun rises an hour later in the Winter" is untrue. Even if the entire US congress agreed, it won't make the sun rise earlier or later.

To make it true you have to write out the implicit bit that you meant but didn't say:

Keeping DST means that the sun rises an hour later relative to locally defined civil time. We agree laws can't affect the sun, so what they change is locally defined civil time.

Logically, we can flip the relative relationship to say: "keeping DST means that locally defined civil time is an hour earlier (than it would have been without permanent DST) relative to when the sun rises." Since the sunrise is constant we can drop it from the statement entirely to get "keeping DST means that locally defined civil time is an hour earlier (than it would have been without permanent DST)."

The vast majority of people don't get up much earlier in the morning than they have to to be at work on time. For those people, the last statement is equivalent to mine. It not only "works logically," it is what is actually happening. Ignoring that implicit relative in your statement gives rise to all kinds of silliness like "Sunshine protection act" and even "daylight savings time." No sunshine is being protected, nor daylight saved.

As you point out, DST makes you wake up an hour earlier. The transition to doing that is what people dislike. They tend to like the transition to not doing it in the fall, although some people still complain because they have OCD and they haven't figured out how to set the VCR clock yet. The bit we don't like is getting up earlier, and the proposal is to do that all the time.

When you actually look at it logically you realize something else: pretty much everybody is free to observe permanent DST whenever they want. All they have to do is get up an hour earlier in the winter than they would otherwise, i.e. at the same time they would in the summer. No time changes. Hardly anyone actually does this. Your boss probably isn't going to be mad if you get to work early. They're certainly not going to be mad if you get up early and enjoy an extra hour in the winter to do whatever you want. Yet almost nobody does this. Almost everyone gets up as late as they can and still meet their social obligations. Especially in the winter.

I wonder why?

Yeah, there's two main problems:

1) People entering the wrong fields. For example, medicine really needs workers, at all levels, but not enough people are going into it.

2) Certain manual labour fields, like field work and home construction, because... well, I think we all know why there's a shortage of workers in those fields.

I don't think the logic really works there

Just to clarify, you think that DST makes the sun rise later rather than than making people get up earlier?

Otherwise being near the timezone border would be an issue

It is. All the incresed heart attacks, strokes, car accidents and whatnot you hear about associated with the time change are also associated with living on the eastern side of a timezone, except every day, not just the one special day a year.

US states can all switch to permanent standard time whenever they want. Some already have. There's a federal law that specifically prohibits switching to permanent DST because the whole country did it in the 70s and hated it so much they not only switched back but made it illegal for everyone.

But everyone (now) thinks they want permanent DST because long summer evenings are nice and they can't remember how much getting up an hour earlier in the winter sucks.

No, it was popular prior to clocks. You got up at sunrise because, as a diurnal animal, that's what your biology likes to do. Some people, many farmers for example, still do this.

"When the sun comes up" is hard to define exactly. The sun isn't a point so you have to decide whether it's the top, bottom, middle, whatever. There's lots of refraction too, so you see the sun come up before it actually does. So when we invented clocks we started using noon as a standard rather than sunrise. It's relatively easy to precisely determine the time of local noon, when the sun reaches its highest point.

The two are different, and that's the source of the problem. Noon stays the same year round, sunrise varies. DST is an attempt to use noon-based time but shift it to be a bit closer to sunrise-based time.

We hear about how the US is pretty authoritarian, but they actually send inspectors to your house to check your clocks? Do you go to jail if you don't change them, or is it just a fine? Is it the FBI that does the raids or is that one of the Secret Service jobs?

Yeah, you could shift them forward in March and back in October or November.